Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that matches or exceeds human cognitive abilities throughout a large range of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to particular jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, describes AGI that considerably exceeds human cognitive abilities. AGI is considered among the definitions of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a main objective of AI research and of companies such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 study determined 72 active AGI research study and development projects throughout 37 nations. [4]
The timeline for achieving AGI remains a subject of continuous debate among researchers and specialists. As of 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or years; others maintain it may take a century or longer; a minority think it might never be attained; and another minority declares that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has actually expressed issues about the rapid development towards AGI, recommending it might be achieved quicker than many anticipate. [7]
There is debate on the precise meaning of AGI and regarding whether modern-day big language designs (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early kinds of AGI. [8] AGI is a common subject in sci-fi and futures studies. [9] [10]
Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. [11] [12] [13] Many professionals on AI have stated that reducing the danger of human termination postured by AGI ought to be a global priority. [14] [15] Others discover the development of AGI to be too remote to present such a danger. [16] [17]
Terminology

AGI is likewise referred to as strong AI, [18] [19] full AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level intelligent AI, or general intelligent action. [21]
Some academic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer system programs that experience sentience or awareness. [a] In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to solve one particular issue but lacks basic cognitive capabilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources utilize "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the same sense as humans. [a]
Related concepts include synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical kind of AGI that is a lot more generally smart than human beings, [23] while the concept of transformative AI associates with AI having a large impact on society, for instance, comparable to the agricultural or industrial transformation. [24]
A framework for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They specify 5 levels of AGI: emerging, competent, professional, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a skilled AGI is specified as an AI that outperforms 50% of experienced adults in a vast array of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. a synthetic superintelligence) is similarly defined however with a limit of 100%. They think about big language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]
Characteristics

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

Researchers typically hold that intelligence is required to do all of the following: [27]
reason, use technique, resolve puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability represent understanding, consisting of good sense knowledge plan find out

• communicate in natural language
• if necessary, incorporate these skills in completion of any offered objective

Many interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and birdiey.com choice making) consider extra characteristics such as creativity (the capability to form novel psychological images and principles) [28] and autonomy. [29]
Computer-based systems that show a number of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated thinking, choice support group, robotic, evolutionary computation, smart representative). There is dispute about whether contemporary AI systems have them to an appropriate degree.

Physical qualities

Other capabilities are thought about desirable in smart systems, as they may impact intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: [30]
- the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on), and - the ability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate things, modification area to explore, etc).
This includes the ability to discover and react to threat. [31]
Although the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the ability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate objects, modification place to explore, and so on) can be desirable for some smart systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly required for an entity to certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that large language models (LLMs) may currently be or become AGI. Even from a less positive point of view on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like kind; being a silicon-based computational system suffices, offered it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This interpretation aligns with the understanding that AGI has never ever been proscribed a particular physical embodiment and thus does not require a capacity for mobility or conventional "eyes and ears". [32]
Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests implied to verify human-level AGI have been considered, utahsyardsale.com consisting of: [33] [34]
The idea of the test is that the device has to attempt and pretend to be a man, by answering questions put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is reasonably persuading. A significant part of a jury, who must not be expert about machines, addsub.wiki must be taken in by the pretence. [37]
AI-complete problems

A problem is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is believed that in order to resolve it, one would need to implement AGI, since the service is beyond the abilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]
There are lots of issues that have actually been conjectured to require basic intelligence to solve as well as human beings. Examples include computer system vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unanticipated scenarios while fixing any real-world issue. [48] Even a particular task like translation requires a device to read and write in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), understand the context (knowledge), and consistently reproduce the author's initial intent (social intelligence). All of these issues need to be fixed all at once in order to reach human-level maker efficiency.

However, a number of these tasks can now be performed by modern-day large language models. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has actually reached human-level efficiency on numerous benchmarks for checking out understanding and visual thinking. [49]
History

Classical AI

Modern AI research study started in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI scientists were encouraged that synthetic basic intelligence was possible and that it would exist in simply a few years. [51] AI leader Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a 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 believed they might produce by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was a specialist [53] on the project of making HAL 9000 as practical as possible according to the consensus predictions of the time. He stated in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of producing 'expert system' will significantly be fixed". [54]
Several classical AI jobs, such as Doug Lenat's Cyc task (that started in 1984), and Allen Newell's Soar project, were directed at AGI.

However, in the early 1970s, it became apparent that scientists had grossly underestimated the difficulty of the project. Funding firms ended up being hesitant of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce beneficial "used AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project restored interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that included AGI goals like "continue a table talk". [58] In action to this and the success of specialist systems, both industry and federal government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI marvelously collapsed in the late 1980s, and the objectives of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never satisfied. [60] For the 2nd time in twenty years, AI scientists who anticipated the impending accomplishment of AGI had actually been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a track record for making vain pledges. They ended up being hesitant to make predictions at all [d] and prevented reference of "human level" artificial intelligence for fear of being identified "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]
Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI accomplished business success and scholastic respectability by focusing on specific sub-problems where AI can produce proven results and commercial applications, such as speech acknowledgment and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now utilized extensively throughout the innovation market, and research study in this vein is greatly moneyed in both academia and market. Since 2018 [upgrade], advancement in this field was considered an emerging trend, and a fully grown stage was expected to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]
At the millenium, lots of traditional AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI might be developed by combining programs that solve different sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:

I am positive that this bottom-up route to artificial intelligence will one day fulfill the traditional top-down route majority method, ready to provide the real-world skills and the commonsense knowledge that has actually been so frustratingly elusive in thinking programs. Fully intelligent devices will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven joining the two efforts. [65]
However, even at the time, this was disputed. For instance, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the symbol grounding hypothesis by stating:

The expectation has typically been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way meet "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is truly just one practical path from sense to signs: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software application level of a computer system will never ever be reached by this route (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we ought to even attempt to reach such a level, considering that it appears getting there would simply amount to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic significances (consequently merely minimizing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer system). [66]
Modern artificial general intelligence research

The term "artificial general intelligence" was utilized as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a discussion of the implications of completely automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI representative increases "the capability to please goals in a large range of environments". [68] This type of AGI, identified by the ability to increase a mathematical definition of intelligence rather than exhibit human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal expert system. [70]
The term AGI was re-introduced and promoted by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research activity in 2006 was described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and preliminary outcomes". The first summer school in AGI was organized in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The first university course was given in 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 including a number of visitor lecturers.

Since 2023 [upgrade], a small number of computer system scientists are active in AGI research, and many contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, increasingly more scientists are interested in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the concept of allowing AI to continually find out and innovate like humans do.

Feasibility

As of 2023, the advancement and possible accomplishment of AGI stays a subject of extreme argument within the AI community. While standard agreement held that AGI was a distant goal, current improvements have led some scientists and industry figures to declare that early forms of AGI may already exist. [78] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do". This forecast stopped working to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century because it would require "unforeseeable and basically unforeseeable developments" and a "scientifically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf in between modern-day computing and human-level expert system is as broad as the gulf in between current space flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]
A further challenge is the absence of clarity in defining what intelligence involves. Does it require awareness? Must it display the capability to set goals as well as pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as planning, reasoning, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence need explicitly replicating the brain and its specific professors? Does it require feelings? [81]
Most AI researchers believe strong AI can be attained in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of achieving strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who believe human-level AI will be accomplished, however that today level of development is such that a date can not precisely be predicted. [84] AI specialists' views on the expediency of AGI wax and wane. Four surveys carried out in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the median quote among 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 specialists, 16.5% addressed with "never ever" when asked the same question but with a 90% self-confidence rather. [85] [86] Further present AGI progress factors to consider 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 time frame there is a strong predisposition towards predicting the arrival of human-level AI as in between 15 and 25 years from the time the prediction was made". They analyzed 95 predictions made between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will come about. [87]
In 2023, Microsoft scientists published a detailed examination of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, we think that it might fairly be considered as an early (yet still incomplete) version of a synthetic basic intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 surpasses 99% of human beings on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]
Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig wrote in 2023 that a considerable level of basic intelligence has currently been attained with frontier designs. They wrote that unwillingness to this view originates from 4 primary factors: a "healthy uncertainty about metrics for AGI", an "ideological commitment to alternative AI theories or strategies", a "dedication to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "issue about the financial ramifications of AGI". [91]
2023 likewise marked the development of large multimodal models (big language models efficient in processing or creating several modalities such as text, audio, and images). [92]
In 2024, OpenAI launched o1-preview, the first of a series of models that "spend more time believing before they respond". According to Mira Murati, this ability to believe before reacting represents a brand-new, additional paradigm. It enhances design outputs by spending more computing power when creating the answer, whereas the design 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 company had actually attained AGI, mentioning, "In my viewpoint, we have actually already attained AGI and it's even more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "better than any human at any job", it is "better than the majority of human beings at a lot of tasks." He likewise resolved criticisms that large language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing procedure to the clinical approach of observing, assuming, and confirming. These statements have stimulated dispute, as they count on a broad and non-traditional definition of AGI-traditionally understood as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's designs demonstrate impressive adaptability, they may not fully fulfill this standard. Notably, Kazemi's remarks came quickly after OpenAI eliminated "AGI" from the regards to its partnership with Microsoft, triggering speculation about the business's strategic intents. [95]
Timescales

Progress in synthetic intelligence has historically gone through durations of rapid progress separated by periods when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were fundamental advances in hardware, software or both to develop area for further progress. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware available in the twentieth century was not sufficient to implement deep learning, which needs big numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]
In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel says that quotes of the time required before a really versatile AGI is constructed vary from 10 years to over a century. As of 2007 [upgrade], the consensus in the AGI research community appeared to be that the timeline gone over by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was possible. [103] Mainstream AI researchers have given a vast array of viewpoints on whether development will be this rapid. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions found a bias towards anticipating that the onset of AGI would take place within 16-26 years for modern and historical forecasts alike. That paper has been slammed for how it classified viewpoints as specialist or non-expert. [104]
In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton developed a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competition with a top-5 test error rate of 15.3%, significantly better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the conventional technique utilized a weighted sum of scores from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered as the preliminary ground-breaker of the existing deep learning wave. [105]
In 2017, scientists Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu carried out intelligence tests on openly available and freely available 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 approximately to a six-year-old kid in very first grade. A grownup concerns about 100 usually. Similar tests were brought out in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching a maximum worth of 27. [106] [107]
In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language design efficient in performing numerous varied tasks without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat short article, while there is consensus that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is thought about by some to be too advanced to be classified as a narrow AI system. [108]
In the exact same year, Jason Rohrer used his GPT-3 account to develop a chatbot, and supplied a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI asked for changes to the chatbot to abide by their security guidelines; Rohrer disconnected Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]
In 2022, DeepMind developed Gato, a "general-purpose" system efficient in carrying out more than 600 different tasks. [110]
In 2023, Microsoft Research released a research study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, competing that it exhibited more general intelligence than previous AI designs and demonstrated human-level performance in jobs spanning multiple domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study sparked a dispute on whether GPT-4 could be considered an early, insufficient version of artificial basic intelligence, highlighting the need for more exploration and examination of such systems. [111]
In 2023, the AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton mentioned that: [112]
The idea that this stuff could in fact get smarter than individuals - a few individuals believed that, [...] But many people thought it was method off. And I thought it was method off. I believed it was 30 to 50 years or even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly said that "The development in the last few years has been pretty unbelievable", and that he sees no reason it would decrease, anticipating AGI within a years or even a couple of years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, stated his expectation that within 5 years, AI would can passing any test at least in addition to humans. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI staff member, approximated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably plausible". [115]
Whole brain emulation

While the advancement of transformer models like in ChatGPT is thought about the most promising path to AGI, [116] [117] whole brain emulation can act as an alternative approach. With entire brain simulation, a brain design is developed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and then copying and mimicing it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation model must be adequately faithful to the original, so that it acts in practically the exact same method as the initial brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a type of brain simulation that is talked about in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study functions. It has actually been talked about in expert system research [103] as an approach to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that could deliver the necessary in-depth understanding are improving quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] anticipates that a map of sufficient quality will become readily available on a comparable timescale to the computing power needed to imitate it.

Early approximates

For low-level brain simulation, a really powerful cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be needed, provided the enormous amount of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) neurons 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 adulthood. Estimates differ for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] An estimate of the brain's processing power, based upon a basic switch design for nerve cell activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]
In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at various quotes for the hardware needed to equal the human brain and embraced 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 current supercomputers - then 1016 "calculations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, achieved in 2011, while 1018 was accomplished in 2022.) He used this figure to forecast the required hardware would be offered sometime in between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential development in computer system power at the time of writing continued.

Current research study

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded initiative active from 2013 to 2023, has developed a particularly in-depth and publicly available 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 neuron model assumed by Kurzweil and utilized in lots of present artificial neural network executions is simple compared with biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely need to catch the comprehensive cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, presently comprehended just in broad overview. The overhead presented by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (particularly on a molecular scale) would need computational powers several orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's estimate. In addition, the quotes do not represent glial cells, which are understood to contribute in cognitive processes. [125]
An essential criticism of the simulated brain technique derives from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is an important element of human intelligence and is necessary to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is appropriate, any fully practical brain design will need to encompass more than just the nerve cells (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an alternative, however it is unidentified whether this would be enough.

Philosophical viewpoint

"Strong AI" as defined in philosophy

In 1980, philosopher John Searle created the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese room argument. [128] He proposed a difference in between 2 hypotheses about expert system: [f]
Strong AI hypothesis: A synthetic intelligence system can have "a mind" and "consciousness". Weak AI hypothesis: An expert system system can (just) imitate it believes and has a mind and awareness.
The very first one he called "strong" since it makes a more powerful declaration: it assumes something unique has happened to the device that goes beyond those capabilities that we can evaluate. The behaviour of a "weak AI" machine would be exactly identical to a "strong AI" device, however the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This usage is also typical in scholastic AI research 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 synthetic basic intelligence". [102] This is not the like Searle's strong AI, unless it is presumed that consciousness is needed for human-level AGI. Academic theorists such as Searle do not believe that is the case, and to most expert system researchers the concern is out-of-scope. [130]
Mainstream AI is most interested in how a program behaves. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they don't care if you call it real or a simulation." [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no need to know if it in fact has mind - undoubtedly, there would be no method 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 academic AI research study, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are two various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have different meanings, and some aspects play substantial functions in sci-fi and the ethics of expert system:

Sentience (or "phenomenal awareness"): The capability to "feel" perceptions or feelings subjectively, instead of the ability to factor about perceptions. Some theorists, such as David Chalmers, use the term "awareness" to refer specifically to phenomenal awareness, which is approximately equivalent to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience develops is known as the hard problem of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel described in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be mindful. If we are not conscious, then it does not feel like anything. Nagel uses the example of a bat: we can smartly ask "what does it feel like to be a bat?" However, we are unlikely to ask "what does it feel like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat seems mindful (i.e., has consciousness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer declared that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had attained life, though this claim was extensively disputed by other experts. [135]
Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a different person, particularly to be consciously familiar with one's own ideas. This is opposed to merely being the "subject of one's thought"-an os or debugger is able to be "familiar with itself" (that is, to represent itself in the same way it represents whatever else)-but this is not what people usually mean when they use the term "self-awareness". [g]
These traits have a moral measurement. AI sentience would offer rise to concerns of welfare and legal defense, similarly to animals. [136] Other aspects of consciousness associated to cognitive capabilities are likewise appropriate to the concept of AI rights. [137] Determining how to integrate innovative AI with existing legal and social structures is an emerging concern. [138]
Benefits

AGI could have a wide array of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI might help reduce numerous issues in the world such as appetite, hardship and illness. [139]
AGI could enhance efficiency and effectiveness in most tasks. For example, in public health, AGI might speed up medical research, notably against cancer. [140] It might look after the senior, [141] and equalize access to quick, high-quality medical diagnostics. It could use fun, inexpensive and customized education. [141] The need to work to subsist could end up being obsolete if the wealth produced is properly rearranged. [141] [142] This also raises the concern of the location of humans in a significantly automated society.

AGI could likewise help to make logical decisions, and to expect and prevent catastrophes. It could also assist to gain the benefits of possibly catastrophic innovations such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while preventing the associated dangers. [143] If an AGI's primary goal is to prevent existential catastrophes such as human extinction (which might be tough if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be true), [144] it might take steps to drastically decrease the threats [143] while decreasing the effect of these procedures on our lifestyle.

Risks

Existential threats

AGI may represent numerous kinds of existential threat, which are risks that threaten "the early extinction of Earth-originating smart life or the long-term and extreme destruction of its potential for desirable future development". [145] The danger of human termination from AGI has been the subject of many arguments, but there is also the possibility that the advancement of AGI would lead to a permanently problematic future. Notably, it could be utilized to spread out and maintain the set of values of whoever establishes it. If mankind still has moral blind spots similar to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, avoiding ethical development. [146] Furthermore, AGI might assist in mass security and indoctrination, which could be used to produce a steady repressive worldwide totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is also a threat for the makers themselves. If devices that are sentient or otherwise deserving of moral factor to consider are mass developed in the future, participating in a civilizational course that forever ignores their welfare and interests might be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI could enhance humanity's future and assistance lower other existential risks, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for continuing with due caution", not for "abandoning AI". [147]
Risk of loss of control and human termination

The thesis that AI poses an existential danger for human beings, which this danger requires more attention, is questionable but has actually been endorsed in 2023 by lots of public figures, AI researchers and CEOs of AI companies such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis and Sam Altman. [151] [152]
In 2014, Stephen Hawking slammed widespread indifference:

So, facing possible futures of enormous advantages and dangers, the specialists are certainly doing everything possible to guarantee the very best result, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll show up in a few years,' would we just reply, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is more or less what is occurring with AI. [153]
The possible fate of humankind has actually sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The comparison mentions that higher intelligence enabled mankind to dominate gorillas, which are now susceptible in manner ins which they could not have actually expected. As an outcome, the gorilla has actually ended up being a threatened species, not out of malice, however simply as a security damage from human activities. [154]
The skeptic Yann LeCun considers that AGIs will have no desire to control mankind which we ought to beware not to anthropomorphize them and analyze their intents as we would for human beings. He said that individuals won't be "clever enough to develop super-intelligent makers, yet extremely stupid to the point of giving it moronic goals with no safeguards". [155] On the other side, the principle of critical merging recommends that nearly whatever their objectives, smart agents will have factors to try to endure and get more power as intermediary steps to achieving these goals. And that this does not require having emotions. [156]
Many scholars who are concerned about existential risk advocate for more research into solving the "control problem" to answer the question: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers execute to increase the likelihood that their recursively-improving AI would continue to act in a friendly, instead of damaging, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is made complex by the AI arms race (which might lead to a race to the bottom of safety precautions in order to launch products before rivals), [159] and using AI in weapon systems. [160]
The thesis that AI can present existential threat likewise has detractors. Skeptics generally say that AGI is not likely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI distract from other issues associated with present AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for many individuals beyond the innovation industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are already viewed as though they were AGI, leading to more misconception and worry. [162]
Skeptics sometimes charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an unreasonable belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an irrational belief in a supreme God. [163] Some scientists believe that the communication campaigns on AI existential danger by specific AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) may be an at effort at regulative capture and to pump up interest in their items. [164] [165]
In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, together with other market leaders and researchers, released a joint statement asserting that "Mitigating the danger of termination from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]
Mass unemployment

Researchers from OpenAI estimated that "80% of the U.S. workforce might have at least 10% of their work jobs affected by the introduction of LLMs, while around 19% of workers may see at least 50% of their jobs affected". [166] [167] They think about workplace workers to be the most exposed, for example mathematicians, accounting professionals or web designers. [167] AGI could have a better autonomy, ability to make decisions, to interface with other computer system tools, but also to manage robotized bodies.

According to Stephen Hawking, the outcome of automation on the lifestyle will depend on how the wealth will be rearranged: [142]
Everyone can delight in a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or the majority of people can wind up miserably bad if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. Up until now, the pattern appears to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

Elon Musk thinks about that the automation of society will require governments to adopt a universal fundamental earnings. [168]
See also

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive capabilities similar to those of the animal or human brain AI impact AI safety - Research location on making AI safe and advantageous AI positioning - AI conformance to the intended goal A.I. Rising - 2018 film directed by Lazar Bodroža Expert system Automated machine learning - Process of automating the application of artificial intelligence BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research study effort announced by the Obama administration China Brain Project Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research study centre General video game playing - Ability of expert system to play various video games Generative artificial intelligence - AI system efficient in creating material in response to triggers Human Brain Project - Scientific research study task Intelligence amplification - Use of infotech to enhance human intelligence (IA). Machine ethics - Moral behaviours of manufactured machines. Moravec's paradox. Multi-task knowing - Solving several device learning tasks at the same time. Neural scaling law - Statistical law in artificial intelligence. Outline of artificial intelligence - Overview of and topical guide to artificial intelligence. Transhumanism - Philosophical motion. Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or type of artificial intelligence. Transfer knowing - Artificial intelligence strategy. Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors. Hardware for artificial intelligence - Hardware specifically created and enhanced for expert system. Weak artificial intelligence - Form of synthetic intelligence.
Notes

^ a b See below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the scholastic meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the short article Chinese room. ^ AI founder John McCarthy writes: "we can not yet characterize in basic what kinds of computational treatments we want to call intelligent. " [26] (For a conversation of some meanings of intelligence utilized by artificial intelligence scientists, see philosophy of expert system.). ^ The Lighthill report particularly slammed AI's "grand goals" and led the dismantling of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became figured out to fund just "mission-oriented direct research, instead of fundamental undirected research". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy composes "it would be an excellent relief to the remainder of the workers in AI if the creators of new basic formalisms would express their hopes in a more safeguarded form 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 approximately correspond to 1014 cps. Moravec talks in regards to MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil introduced. ^ As specified in a basic AI textbook: "The assertion that machines might possibly act intelligently (or, perhaps better, act as if they were smart) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by thinkers, and the assertion that devices that do so are actually thinking (instead of mimicing thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is artificial narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is created to perform a single job. ^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to guarantee that artificial basic intelligence advantages all of humanity. ^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's brand-new objective is developing artificial basic intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to build 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 jobs were recognized as being active in 2020. ^ a b c "AI timelines: What do professionals in artificial intelligence expect for the future?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 6 April 2023. ^ Metz, Cade (15 May 2023). "Some Researchers Say A.I. Is Already Here, Stirring Debate in Tech Circles". The New York City Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023. ^ "AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton gives up Google and alerts of danger ahead". The New York City Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is difficult to see how you can avoid the bad stars from using it for bad things. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 reveals stimulates of AGI. ^ Butler, Octavia E. (1993 ). Parable of the Sower. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4466-7550-5. All that you touch you change. All that you change modifications you. ^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming. ^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Artificial Intelligence". The New York City Times. The real threat is not AI itself however the way we release it. ^ "Impressed by expert system? Experts say AGI is coming next, and it has 'existential' dangers". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI could pose existential dangers to humankind. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The very first superintelligence will be the last innovation that humanity needs to make. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. Mitigating the danger of termination from AI must be a global concern. ^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI specialists warn of risk of termination from AI. ^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York City Times. We are far from producing devices that can outthink us in general 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 original on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil describes strong AI as "device intelligence with the complete series 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. ^ "Expert system is changing our world - it is on everyone to ensure that it works out". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023. ^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to accomplishing AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat. ^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007. ^ This list of intelligent qualities is based on the topics covered by significant AI books, 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: Academic Press. ^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body forms the way we believe: a brand-new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The concept of skills". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The idea of proficiency". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the original on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014. ^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the initial on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019. ^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What 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 real young boy - the Turing Test states 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 differentiate GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC] ^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI designs like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing everything from the bar exam to AP Biology. Here's a list of tough tests both AI versions have 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 response". 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 ). "Artificial Intelligence" (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 original on 22 May 2013. ^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50. ^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). "Expert System, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the original on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022. ^ Simon 1965, p. 96 priced quote 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 likewise Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212. ^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). "Reply to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the initial 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 Times. Archived from the initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system researchers and software application engineers prevented the term expert system for fear of being considered as wild-eyed dreamers. ^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26 ^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019. ^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20 ^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300. ^ Gubrud 1997 ^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Technology an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the initial on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022. ^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the original 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 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 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 триместър" [Elective courses 2010/2011 - winter trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limits of maker intelligence: Despite progress in machine intelligence, artificial basic intelligence is still a significant challenge". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early 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 turn into a Frankenstein's beast". The Guardian. Archived from the initial on 17 September 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2014. ^ Deane, George (2022 ). "Machines That Feel and Think: The Role of Affective Feelings and Mental Action in (Artificial) General Intelligence". Artificial Life. 28 (3 ): 289-309. doi:10.1162/ artl_a_00368. ISSN 1064-5462. PMID 35881678. S2CID 251069071. ^ a b c Clocksin 2003. ^ Fjelland, Ragnar (17 June 2020). "Why basic expert system will not be 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 expert system bring us utopia or damage?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016. ^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future progress in expert system: A study of professional viewpoint. 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, 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 originality 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 Brand-new AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024. ^ "OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved". Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024. ^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024. ^ "Next-Gen AI: OpenAI and Meta's Leap Towards Reasoning Machines". Unite.ai. 19 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024. ^ James, Alex P. (2022 ). "The Why, What, and How of Artificial General Intelligence Chip Development". IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. 14 (2 ): 333-347. arXiv:2012.06338. doi:10.1109/ TCDS.2021.3069871. ISSN 2379-8920. S2CID 228376556. Archived from the 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 synthetic basic intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture". Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the original on 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022. ^ Pandey, Mohit; Fernandez, Michael; Gentile, Francesco; Isayev, Olexandr; Tropsha, Alexander; Stern, Abraham C.; Cherkasov, Artem (March 2022). "The transformational 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 clever as Siri - however 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 going into the AI twilight zone in between narrow and general AI". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020. Certainly, too, there are those who 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 agreement is that it is not AGI. ... If nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a middle ground in between narrow and general AI. ^ Quach, Katyanna. "A designer constructed an AI chatbot utilizing GPT-3 that assisted a man speak 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 new AI can perform over 600 jobs, from playing games to managing robots", TechCrunch, archived from the original on 16 June 2022, recovered 12 June 2022. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (22 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL] ^ Metz, Cade (1 May 2023). "' The Godfather of A.I.' Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead". The New York City Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ Bove, Tristan. "A.I. might measure up to human intelligence in 'simply a few years,' states CEO of Google's main A.I. research study laboratory". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024. ^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO says AI could pass human tests in five years". Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead". ^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). "Why everyone appears to disagree on how to specify Artificial General Intelligence". Fast Company. ^ Nosta, John (5 January 2024). "The Accelerating Path to Artificial General Intelligence". Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 March 2024. ^ Hickey, Alex. "Whole Brain Emulation: A 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 study 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, all of which need grounding to some degree ^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How publishing our minds to a computer system may become possible". The Conversation. Retrieved 8 November 2023. ^ Searle 1980 ^ For instance: Russell & Norvig 2003, Oxford University Press Dictionary of Psychology Archived 3 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine (quoted in" Encyclopedia.com"),. MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (quoted in "AITopics"),. Will Biological Computers Enable Artificially Intelligent Machines to Become Persons? Archived 13 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Anthony Tongen.


^ a b c Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 947. ^ though see Explainable synthetic intelligence for curiosity by the field about why a program acts the way it does. ^ Chalmers, David J. (9 August 2023). "Could a Big Language Model Be Conscious?". Boston Review. ^ Seth, Anil. "Consciousness". New Scientist. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Nagel 1974. ^ "The Google engineer who thinks the company's AI has actually come to life". The Washington Post. 11 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Nosta, John (18 December 2023). "Should Expert System Have Rights?". Psychology Today. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Akst, Daniel (10 April 2023). "Should Robots With Expert System Have Moral or Legal Rights?". The Wall Street Journal. ^ "Artificial General Intelligence - Do [es] the cost exceed advantages?". 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "How we can 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 Appear 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, methods (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, UK; New York City, 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 people will destroy ourselves". Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). "Climate change an 'existential security risk' to Australia, Senate questions states". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023. ^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6. ^ a b Ord, Toby (2020 ). "Chapter 5: Future Risks, Unaligned Expert System". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9. ^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious". Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). "Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ a b "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of synthetic intelligence - however are we taking AI seriously enough?'". The Independent (UK). Archived from the original on 25 September 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2014. ^ Herger, Mario. "The Gorilla Problem - Enterprise Garage". Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "The interesting Facebook argument between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the dangers of strong AI". The interesting Facebook dispute 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 Mankind Within The Next 100 Years?". HuffPost. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sotala, Kaj; Yampolskiy, Roman V. (19 December 2014). "Responses to devastating AGI risk: a study". Physica Scripta. 90 (1 ): 018001. doi:10.1088/ 0031-8949/90/ 1/018001. ISSN 0031-8949. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (First ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Chow, Andrew R.; Perrigo, Billy (16 February 2023). "The AI Arms Race Is On. Start Worrying". TIME. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Tetlow, Gemma (12 January 2017). "AI arms race risks 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 danger presented but expert system can not be neglected". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ "Humanity, Security & AI, Oh My! (with Ian Bremmer & Shuman Ghosemajumder)". CAFE. 20 July 2023. Retrieved 15 September 2023. ^ Hamblin, James (9 May 2014). "But What Would completion of Humanity Mean for Me?". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 12 December 2015. ^ Titcomb, James (30 October 2023). "Big Tech is stiring fears over AI, caution scientists". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain founder states big tech is lying about AI termination threat". 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 impact potential of big language models". OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). "OpenAI states 80% of employees could see their jobs affected by AI. These are the jobs most impacted". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk says we need universal standard income because 'in the future, physical work will be a choice'". Business Insider. Archived from the initial on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Sources

UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the 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: 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 original (PDF) on 20 March 2013. Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), "Human-level synthetic 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 original on 7 January 2016, retrieved 1 April 2009. Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), "Nanotechnology and International Security", Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the original on 29 May 2011, recovered 7 May 2011. Howe, J. (November 1994), Expert System at Edinburgh University: a Viewpoint, archived from the initial on 17 August 2007, retrieved 30 August 2007. Johnson, Mark (1987 ), The body in the mind, Chicago, ISBN 978-0-2264-0317-5. Kurzweil, Ray (2005 ), The Singularity is Near, Viking Press. Lighthill, Professor Sir James (1973 ), "Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey", Expert System: a paper symposium, Science Research Council. Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Expert System: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving (fifth ed.), The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., p. 720, ISBN 978-0-8053-4780-7. McCarthy, John (2007b). What is Artificial Intelligence?. Stanford University. The supreme effort is to make computer system programs that can solve issues and accomplish objectives in the world in addition to people. Moravec, Hans (1988 ), Mind Children, Harvard University Press Moravec, Hans (1998 ), "When will hardware match the human brain?", Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 1, archived from the 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, recovered 7 November 2009 Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1976 ). "Computer Technology as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search". Communications of the ACM. 19 (3 ): 113-126. doi:10.1145/ 360018.360022. Nilsson, Nils (1998 ), Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, ISBN 978-1-5586-0467-4 NRC (1999 ), "Developments in Artificial Intelligence", Funding a Transformation: Government Support for Computing Research, National Academy Press, archived from the initial on 12 January 2008, retrieved 29 September 2007 Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Sensible Approach, New York: Oxford University Press, archived from the initial on 25 July 2009, obtained 6 December 2007 Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003 ), Expert System: A Modern Approach (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-790395-2 Sandberg, Anders; Boström, Nick (2008 ), Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap (PDF), Technical Report # 2008-3, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University, archived (PDF) from the 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 original on 17 March 2019, retrieved 3 September 2020 Simon, H. A. (1965 ), The Shape of Automation for Men and Management, New York: Harper & Row Turing, Alan (October 1950). "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". Mind. 59 (236 ): 433-460. doi:10.1093/ mind/LIX.236.433. ISSN 1460-2113. JSTOR 2251299. S2CID 14636783.
de Vega, Manuel; Glenberg, Arthur; Graesser, Arthur, eds. (2008 ), Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on significance and cognition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-1992-1727-4 Wang, Pei; Goertzel, Ben (2007 ). "Introduction: Aspects of Artificial General Intelligence". Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms: Proceedings of the AGI Workshop 2006. IOS Press. pp. 1-16. ISBN 978-1-5860-3758-1. Archived from the original on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 - via ResearchGate.
Further reading

Aleksander, Igor (1996 ), Impossible Minds, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 978-1-8609-4036-1 Azevedo FA, Carvalho LR, Grinberg LT, Farfel J, et al. (April 2009), "Equal varieties of neuronal and nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled-up primate brain", The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 513 (5 ): 532-541, doi:10.1002/ cne.21974, PMID 19226510, S2CID 5200449, archived from the initial on 18 February 2021, obtained 4 September 2013 - through ResearchGate Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Artificial Intelligence Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the initial on 23 July 2014, obtained 31 August 2012 Cukier, Kenneth, "Ready for Robots? How to Consider the Future of AI", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 4 (July/August 2019), pp. 192-98. George Dyson, historian of computing, composes (in what may be called "Dyson's Law") that "Any system simple enough to be reasonable will not be made complex enough to act smartly, while any system complicated enough to act smartly will be too made complex to understand." (p. 197.) Computer researcher Alex Pentland composes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead basic silly. They work, but they work by strength." (p. 198.). Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the original on 26 July 2010, recovered 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 Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. "Agency is what distinguishes us from makers. For biological animals, reason and purpose come from acting on the planet and experiencing the effects. Artificial intelligences - disembodied, complete strangers to blood, sweat, and tears - have no celebration for that." (p. 30.). Halal, William E. "TechCast Article Series: The Automation of Thought" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 June 2013. - Halpern, Sue, "The Coming Tech Autocracy" (review of Verity Harding, AI Needs You: How We Can Change AI's Future and Save Our Own, Princeton University Press, 274 pp.; Gary Marcus, Taming Silicon Valley: How We Can Ensure That AI Works for Us, MIT Press, 235 pp.; Daniela Rus and Gregory Mone, The Mind's Mirror: Risk and Reward in the Age of AI, Norton, 280 pp.; Madhumita Murgia, Code Dependent: Living in the Shadow of AI, Henry Holt, 311 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. "' We can't realistically expect that those who intend to get abundant from AI are going to have the interests of the rest people close at heart,' ... writes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't depend on federal governments driven by project financing contributions [from tech business] to push back.' ... Marcus information the needs that residents should make of their governments and the tech business. They consist of transparency on how AI systems work; settlement for individuals if their data [are] used to train LLMs (big language design) s and the right to grant this usage; and the capability to hold tech business liable for the damages they bring on by removing Section 230, imposing money penalites, and passing stricter product liability laws ... Marcus also suggests ... that a new, AI-specific federal agency, comparable to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, might provide the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law teacher Chinmayi Sharma ... suggests ... establish [ing] an expert licensing routine for engineers that would operate in a comparable method to medical licenses, malpractice suits, and the Hippocratic oath in medication. 'What if, like physicians,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers also pledged to do no harm?'" (p. 46.). Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), "Abstraction and reformulation in expert system", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 358, no. 1435, pp. 1197-1204, doi:10.1098/ rstb.2003.1317, PMC 1693218, PMID 12903653. Hughes-Castleberry, Kenna, "A Murder Mystery Puzzle: The literary puzzle Cain's Jawbone, which has actually puzzled humans for passfun.awardspace.us decades, reveals the restrictions of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder secret competitors has actually revealed that although NLP (natural-language processing) designs are capable of incredible accomplishments, their abilities are quite limited by the amount of context they get. This [...] could cause [difficulties] for researchers who intend to use them to do things such as evaluate ancient languages. In many cases, there are couple of historical records on long-gone civilizations to function as training data for such a function." (p. 82.). Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: People now utilize A.I. to generate fake videos equivalent from real ones. Just how much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we indicate reasonable videos produced using expert system that actually trick individuals, then they hardly exist. The fakes aren't deep, and the deeps aren't fake. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in basic, running in our media as counterfeited proof. Their function better looks like that of cartoons, specifically smutty ones." (p. 59.). - Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We should avoid humanizing machine-learning designs used in clinical 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", Expert System, 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, 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 City: McGraw-Hill. Omohundro, Steve (2008 ), The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence, 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 showed that intelligence can not be measured by IQ alone", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 1 (July/August 2023), p. 7. "Despite its high IQ, ChatGPT fails at jobs that require genuine humanlike reasoning or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT seemed unable to factor logically and tried to depend on its large database of ... realities 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 innovations are powerful however undependable. Rules-based systems can not deal with circumstances their developers did not expect. Learning systems are restricted by the information on which they were trained. AI failures have actually currently resulted in tragedy. Advanced auto-pilot functions in cars and trucks, although they perform well in some scenarios, have actually driven cars and trucks without alerting into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked vehicles. In the incorrect scenario, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an immediate. When an enemy is trying to manipulate and hack an AI system, the dangers 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 brand-new innovations however count on the timelelss human propensity to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.). Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.