GitLab

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a kind of expert system (AI) that matches or goes beyond human cognitive abilities across a large range of cognitive tasks. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to specific tasks. [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 main objective of AI research study and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 survey identified 72 active AGI research study and development jobs throughout 37 countries. [4]
The timeline for achieving AGI stays a subject of continuous debate among researchers and professionals. 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 believe it may never be accomplished; and another minority claims that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton has expressed issues about the rapid progress towards AGI, suggesting it might be accomplished earlier than many expect. [7]
There is dispute on the specific meaning of AGI and concerning whether modern big language designs (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early kinds of AGI. [8] AGI is a common topic 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 stated that reducing the risk of human extinction posed by AGI ought to be a global priority. [14] [15] Others discover the advancement of AGI to be too remote to provide such a danger. [16] [17]
Terminology

AGI is likewise understood as strong AI, [18] [19] full AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level smart AI, or general smart action. [21]
Some scholastic sources schedule the term "strong AI" for computer system programs that experience life or consciousness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to resolve one particular issue however 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 exact same sense as people. [a]
Related concepts include artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical type of AGI that is much more typically smart than human beings, [23] while the idea of transformative AI associates with AI having a large effect on society, for example, comparable to the agricultural or industrial revolution. [24]
A structure for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They define five levels of AGI: emerging, proficient, expert, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, users.atw.hu a qualified AGI is specified as an AI that outperforms 50% of skilled adults in a wide variety of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. a synthetic superintelligence) is likewise defined but with a limit of 100%. They think about big language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]
Characteristics

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

Researchers generally hold that intelligence is required to do all of the following: [27]
reason, use strategy, solve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty represent understanding, including good sense understanding strategy discover

• interact in natural language
• if needed, incorporate these abilities in completion of any provided objective

Many interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) consider additional qualities such as creativity (the capability to form novel mental images and concepts) [28] and autonomy. [29]
Computer-based systems that display numerous of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated reasoning, choice support group, robot, evolutionary computation, smart agent). There is argument about whether modern AI systems have them to an appropriate degree.

Physical traits

Other abilities are considered desirable in intelligent systems, as they may affect intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: [30]
- the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and - the capability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate objects, change area to check out, and so on).
This includes the capability to identify and react to danger. [31]
Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the capability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate objects, modification area to check out, and so on) can be preferable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly required for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that large language models (LLMs) may currently be or become AGI. Even from a less optimistic viewpoint on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like form; being a silicon-based computational system suffices, offered it can process input (language) from the external world in location of human senses. This analysis aligns with the understanding that AGI has never ever been proscribed a particular physical personification and thus does not demand a capability for locomotion or conventional "eyes and ears". [32]
Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests meant to verify human-level AGI have actually been considered, consisting of: [33] [34]
The idea of the test is that the device has to attempt and pretend to be a man, by addressing concerns put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is reasonably persuading. A considerable part of a jury, who should not be professional about machines, must be taken in by the pretence. [37]
AI-complete issues

A problem is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is believed that in order to fix it, one would need to execute AGI, due to the fact that the option is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]
There are lots of issues that have been conjectured to need basic intelligence to fix along with people. Examples consist of computer system vision, natural language understanding, and handling unanticipated situations while solving any real-world problem. [48] Even a particular job like translation requires a device to check out and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (reason), understand the context (knowledge), and consistently replicate the author's initial intent (social intelligence). All of these issues need to be resolved at the same time in order to reach human-level maker performance.

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

Classical AI

Modern AI research began in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI scientists were persuaded 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: "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do." [52]
Their forecasts were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, grandtribunal.org who embodied what AI scientists thought they might develop by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a specialist [53] on the job of making HAL 9000 as realistic as possible according to the agreement forecasts of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation ... the issue of producing 'expert system' will significantly be solved". [54]
Several classical AI tasks, such as Doug Lenat's Cyc job (that began in 1984), and Allen Newell's Soar project, were directed at AGI.

However, in the early 1970s, it became obvious that scientists had grossly underestimated the trouble of the task. Funding agencies became hesitant of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce beneficial "applied AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project restored interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that consisted of AGI objectives like "continue a casual discussion". [58] In action to this and the success of professional systems, both industry and government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, self-confidence in AI stunningly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the objectives of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever fulfilled. [60] For the second time in twenty years, AI scientists who predicted the imminent achievement of AGI had been mistaken. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a credibility for making vain pledges. They ended up being hesitant to make predictions at all [d] and avoided mention of "human level" synthetic intelligence for fear of being labeled "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]
Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI achieved industrial success and scholastic respectability by focusing on specific sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable outcomes and industrial applications, such as speech recognition and suggestion algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now used extensively throughout the technology market, and research study in this vein is greatly funded in both academic community and industry. Since 2018 [upgrade], advancement in this field was thought about an emerging pattern, and a mature phase was anticipated to be reached in more than ten years. [64]
At the turn of the century, many mainstream AI researchers [65] hoped that strong AI could be developed by combining programs that solve various sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:

I am confident that this bottom-up route to expert system will one day fulfill the standard top-down route majority way, prepared to provide the real-world competence 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 uniting the two efforts. [65]
However, even at the time, this was contested. For example, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the sign grounding hypothesis by specifying:

The expectation has typically been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow satisfy "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches someplace in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper are valid, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is actually just one feasible route from sense to signs: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software 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 try to reach such a level, given that it looks as if arriving would just amount to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic significances (thereby simply minimizing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]
Modern artificial basic intelligence research

The term "synthetic general intelligence" was utilized as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation 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 agent increases "the capability to please objectives in a broad range of environments". [68] This kind of AGI, defined by the ability to increase a mathematical definition of intelligence instead of display human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal synthetic intelligence. [70]
The term AGI was re-introduced and promoted by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research activity in 2006 was described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and initial results". The first summer 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 up 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 including a variety of guest speakers.

As of 2023 [update], a little number of computer system researchers are active in AGI research study, and lots of add to a series of AGI conferences. However, increasingly more researchers have an interest in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the concept of permitting AI to constantly discover and innovate like human beings do.

Feasibility

Since 2023, the development and potential achievement of AGI remains a subject of extreme dispute within the AI community. While standard agreement held that AGI was a distant goal, current developments have led some researchers and market figures to claim that early forms of AGI may already exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do". This prediction stopped working to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century since it would require "unforeseeable and fundamentally unpredictable breakthroughs" and a "clinically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield claimed the gulf in between modern-day computing and human-level synthetic intelligence is as broad as the gulf in between present area flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]
A further obstacle is the absence of clearness in specifying what intelligence involves. Does it require awareness? Must it show the capability to set objectives as well as pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if model sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as planning, reasoning, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence require clearly duplicating the brain and its specific faculties? Does it need feelings? [81]
Most AI researchers believe strong AI can be achieved in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, reject the possibility of achieving strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who believe human-level AI will be accomplished, but that the present level of progress is such that a date can not properly be predicted. [84] AI specialists' views on the expediency of AGI wax and subside. Four polls performed in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the average price quote among experts for when they would be 50% positive AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the specialists, 16.5% responded to with "never" when asked the same question but with a 90% confidence instead. [85] [86] Further present AGI progress considerations can be found above Tests for confirming human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute found that "over [a] 60-year timespan there is a strong bias towards predicting the arrival of human-level AI as in between 15 and 25 years from the time the forecast was made". They examined 95 forecasts made in between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will come about. [87]
In 2023, Microsoft researchers published a comprehensive assessment of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, our company believe that it could reasonably be seen as an early (yet still incomplete) variation of a synthetic general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outshines 99% of human beings on the Torrance tests of innovative thinking. [89] [90]
Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig composed in 2023 that a considerable level of general intelligence has currently been attained with frontier models. They composed that reluctance to this view originates from 4 main factors: a "healthy suspicion about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or methods", a "dedication to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "concern about the financial ramifications of AGI". [91]
2023 also marked the emergence of large multimodal designs (big language designs efficient in processing or generating multiple techniques such as text, audio, and images). [92]
In 2024, OpenAI launched o1-preview, the first of a series of models that "invest more time believing before they respond". According to Mira Murati, this ability to think before reacting represents a brand-new, extra paradigm. It enhances design outputs by investing more computing power when creating the answer, whereas the design scaling paradigm improves outputs by increasing the design size, training data and training calculate power. [93] [94]
An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the business had actually achieved AGI, stating, "In my opinion, we have currently achieved AGI and it's a lot more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "better than any human at any task", it is "much better than many human beings at many tasks." He likewise resolved criticisms that large language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their learning procedure to the clinical method of observing, hypothesizing, and confirming. These declarations have stimulated debate, as they depend on a broad and unconventional meaning of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models show exceptional adaptability, they might not completely fulfill this requirement. Notably, Kazemi's comments came quickly after OpenAI eliminated "AGI" from the regards to its partnership with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the business's tactical intentions. [95]
Timescales

Progress in expert system has traditionally gone through periods of fast development separated by periods when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were basic advances in hardware, software or both to produce area for more progress. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the computer system hardware readily available in the twentieth century was not adequate to execute deep knowing, which requires great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]
In the intro to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel says that estimates of the time required before a genuinely flexible AGI is constructed differ from ten years to over a century. Since 2007 [upgrade], the agreement in the AGI research study neighborhood appeared to be that the timeline talked about by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. in between 2015 and 2045) was possible. [103] Mainstream AI researchers have actually offered a vast array of viewpoints on whether development will be this rapid. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such viewpoints discovered a predisposition towards predicting that the beginning of AGI would take place within 16-26 years for modern-day and historical forecasts alike. That paper has been slammed for how it classified opinions as professional 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%, considerably much better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the conventional technique utilized a weighted amount of ratings from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered the initial ground-breaker of the current deep knowing wave. [105]
In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu conducted 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 around to a six-year-old child in first grade. A grownup pertains to about 100 typically. Similar tests were carried out in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching an optimum value of 27. [106] [107]
In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language model capable of carrying out many varied tasks without specific training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat short article, while there is agreement that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is thought about by some to be too advanced to be classified as a narrow AI system. [108]
In the same year, Jason Rohrer used his GPT-3 account to establish a chatbot, and offered a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested changes to the chatbot to adhere to their security standards; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]
In 2022, DeepMind developed Gato, a "general-purpose" system efficient in carrying out more than 600 various tasks. [110]
In 2023, Microsoft Research published a study on an early variation of OpenAI's GPT-4, competing that it showed more basic intelligence than previous AI designs and demonstrated human-level efficiency in jobs covering multiple domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study sparked a debate on whether GPT-4 might be considered an early, insufficient variation of synthetic general intelligence, emphasizing the need for additional expedition and assessment of such systems. [111]
In 2023, the AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton mentioned that: [112]
The concept that this things could really get smarter than individuals - a few individuals believed that, [...] But the majority of people believed it was method off. And I thought it was way off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years and even longer away. Obviously, I no longer believe that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly stated that "The progress in the last couple of years has actually been pretty extraordinary", and that he sees no reason that it would slow down, anticipating AGI within a decade and even a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, mentioned his expectation that within 5 years, AI would can passing any test a minimum of in addition to human beings. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI worker, estimated AGI by 2027 to be "strikingly plausible". [115]
Whole brain emulation

While the advancement of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is considered the most appealing path to AGI, [116] [117] whole brain emulation can serve as an alternative technique. With whole brain simulation, a brain model is developed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and after that copying and mimicing it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation design should be adequately loyal to the original, so that it acts in almost the same method as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is gone over in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study purposes. It has been discussed in expert system research [103] as a technique to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that might provide the needed detailed understanding are improving quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] predicts that a map of adequate quality will appear on a similar timescale to the computing power required to emulate it.

Early estimates

For low-level brain simulation, a very powerful cluster of computers or GPUs would be needed, given the huge quantity 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 child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number decreases with age, stabilizing by the adult years. Estimates differ for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A price quote of the brain's processing power, based on an easy switch design for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]
In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at different estimates for the hardware required to equate to the human brain and adopted a figure of 1016 computations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "calculation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a step used to rate current supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, accomplished in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He utilized this figure to predict the essential hardware would be readily available at some point in between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential 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 developed an especially detailed and openly accessible atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, scientists from Duke University carried out a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.

Criticisms of simulation-based techniques

The artificial nerve cell design assumed by Kurzweil and utilized in lots of existing synthetic neural network applications is simple compared with biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely need to catch the comprehensive cellular behaviour of biological neurons, currently understood only in broad outline. The overhead introduced by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical details of neural behaviour (especially on a molecular scale) would need computational powers a number of orders of magnitude bigger than Kurzweil's estimate. In addition, the quotes do not account for glial cells, which are understood to play a role in cognitive procedures. [125]
An essential criticism of the simulated brain technique stems from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is an important aspect of human intelligence and is needed to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is proper, any completely practical brain design will require to include more than simply the nerve cells (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an option, however it is unidentified whether this would be enough.

Philosophical perspective

"Strong AI" as specified in viewpoint

In 1980, philosopher John Searle coined the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese room argument. [128] He proposed a difference in between 2 hypotheses about synthetic intelligence: [f]
Strong AI hypothesis: An expert system system can have "a mind" and "consciousness". Weak AI hypothesis: An artificial intelligence system can (only) imitate it thinks and has a mind and awareness.
The very first one he called "strong" due to the fact that it makes a more powerful statement: it assumes something special has actually occurred to the machine that exceeds those capabilities that we can evaluate. The behaviour of a "weak AI" device would be precisely identical to a "strong AI" maker, but the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This use is also typical in scholastic AI research study and books. [129]
In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil utilize the term "strong AI" to mean "human level artificial basic intelligence". [102] This is not the exact same as Searle's strong AI, unless it is assumed that consciousness is required for human-level AGI. Academic thinkers such as Searle do not believe that holds true, and to most artificial intelligence scientists the question 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 requirement to understand if it in fact has mind - undoubtedly, there would be no chance to tell. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is equivalent to the statement "artificial general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for granted, and don't care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are two different things.

Consciousness

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

Sentience (or "sensational consciousness"): The ability to "feel" perceptions or emotions subjectively, instead of the capability to factor about understandings. Some thinkers, such as David Chalmers, utilize the term "consciousness" to refer solely to phenomenal awareness, which is approximately equivalent to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience arises is referred to as the tough problem of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel explained in 1974 that it "seems like" something to be conscious. If we are not conscious, then it doesn't seem like anything. Nagel uses the example of a bat: we can sensibly ask "what does it seem like to be a bat?" However, we are unlikely to ask "what does it feel like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat seems conscious (i.e., has consciousness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer declared that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually attained life, though this claim was commonly contested by other professionals. [135]
Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a different individual, particularly to be knowingly knowledgeable about one's own ideas. This is opposed to simply being the "topic of one's believed"-an os or debugger is able to be "conscious of itself" (that is, to represent itself in the very same way it represents whatever else)-but this is not what people normally indicate when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]
These qualities have an ethical measurement. AI life would generate issues of well-being and legal protection, likewise to animals. [136] Other aspects of consciousness related to cognitive abilities are also relevant to the principle of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to integrate innovative AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emergent problem. [138]
Benefits

AGI could have a wide range of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI could assist mitigate different problems on the planet such as hunger, poverty and health issue. [139]
AGI could enhance performance and effectiveness in a lot of jobs. For instance, in public health, AGI might accelerate medical research, significantly versus cancer. [140] It might look after the elderly, [141] and equalize access to fast, high-quality medical diagnostics. It might offer fun, inexpensive and personalized education. [141] The need to work to subsist might become outdated if the wealth produced is correctly redistributed. [141] [142] This also raises the concern of the place of human beings in a radically automated society.

AGI might also help to make rational choices, and to anticipate and avoid catastrophes. It might also assist to profit of possibly devastating technologies such as nanotechnology or environment engineering, while preventing the associated dangers. [143] If an AGI's primary goal is to avoid existential disasters such as human extinction (which could be hard if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be true), [144] it might take procedures to drastically minimize the dangers [143] while reducing the impact of these procedures on our lifestyle.

Risks

Existential threats

AGI may represent several types of existential danger, which are risks that threaten "the premature termination of Earth-originating smart life or the irreversible and drastic destruction of its potential for desirable future advancement". [145] The danger of human extinction from AGI has actually been the topic of many disputes, but there is also the possibility that the development of AGI would lead to a completely flawed future. Notably, it might be utilized to spread out and protect the set of worths of whoever establishes it. If humanity still has ethical blind areas similar to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, avoiding moral development. [146] Furthermore, AGI might assist in mass security and brainwashing, which might be utilized to produce a steady repressive worldwide totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is likewise a threat for the makers themselves. If machines that are sentient or otherwise worthy of moral consideration are mass produced in the future, participating in a civilizational course that forever neglects their welfare and interests could be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI might enhance humankind's future and aid decrease other existential risks, Toby Ord calls these existential threats "an argument for continuing with due care", not for "abandoning AI". [147]
Risk of loss of control and human extinction

The thesis that AI poses an existential risk for people, and that this threat needs more attention, is questionable but has been backed in 2023 by lots of public figures, AI scientists and CEOs of AI business such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis and Sam Altman. [151] [152]
In 2014, Stephen Hawking slammed widespread indifference:

So, facing possible futures of incalculable advantages and dangers, the professionals are definitely doing whatever possible to make sure the very best outcome, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message saying, 'We'll show up in a couple of decades,' would we simply respond, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is more or less what is occurring with AI. [153]
The prospective fate of humanity has often been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The comparison mentions that higher intelligence permitted humanity to dominate gorillas, which are now susceptible in methods that they could not have actually prepared for. As an outcome, the gorilla has actually ended up being an endangered species, not out of malice, but just as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]
The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to control humankind which we ought to take care not to anthropomorphize them and analyze their intents as we would for humans. He said that individuals won't be "wise adequate to design super-intelligent machines, yet extremely dumb to the point of providing it moronic objectives without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the concept of critical merging recommends that nearly whatever their objectives, smart agents will have reasons to attempt to survive and acquire more power as intermediary actions to achieving these objectives. And that this does not need having feelings. [156]
Many scholars who are worried about existential danger supporter for more research study into resolving the "control problem" to address the question: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers execute to increase the likelihood that their recursively-improving AI would continue to act in a friendly, rather than damaging, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is complicated by the AI arms race (which might lead to a race to the bottom of safety precautions in order to launch products before rivals), [159] and the usage of AI in weapon systems. [160]
The thesis that AI can present existential threat also has critics. Skeptics usually state that AGI is not likely in the short-term, or that concerns about AGI sidetrack from other concerns connected to present AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for lots of individuals outside of the innovation industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are currently viewed as though they were AGI, causing additional misconception and fear. [162]
Skeptics sometimes charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an unreasonable belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an unreasonable belief in an omnipotent God. [163] Some researchers think that the interaction projects on AI existential danger by particular AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) may be an at attempt at regulative capture and to inflate interest in their items. [164] [165]
In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, along with other industry leaders and scientists, issued a joint statement asserting that "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI must be an international concern 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 could have at least 10% of their work tasks impacted by the intro of LLMs, while around 19% of workers may see at least 50% of their tasks impacted". [166] [167] They think about office workers to be the most exposed, for example mathematicians, accounting professionals or web designers. [167] AGI could have a much better autonomy, capability to make choices, to user interface with other computer system tools, however also to control 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 elegant leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or many people can end up badly bad if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be towards the second choice, 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 result AI security - Research area on making AI safe and beneficial AI alignment - AI conformance to the designated goal 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 study effort announced by the Obama administration China Brain Project Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research study centre General game playing - Ability of expert system to play various games Generative synthetic intelligence - AI system efficient in creating material in reaction to prompts Human Brain Project - Scientific research project Intelligence amplification - Use of info technology to enhance human intelligence (IA). Machine ethics - Moral behaviours of manufactured makers. Moravec's paradox. Multi-task learning - Solving several machine learning jobs at the same time. Neural scaling law - Statistical law in machine knowing. Outline of expert system - Overview of and topical guide to expert system. Transhumanism - Philosophical motion. Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or type of synthetic intelligence. Transfer knowing - Machine learning method. Loebner Prize - Annual AI competition. Hardware for artificial intelligence - Hardware specifically designed and enhanced for artificial intelligence. Weak artificial intelligence - Form of expert system.
Notes

^ a b See listed below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the scholastic meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the article Chinese space. ^ AI creator John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet define 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 approach of expert system.). ^ The Lighthill report specifically slammed AI's "grand objectives" and led the taking apart of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA ended up being figured out to fund only "mission-oriented direct research, instead of undirected research study". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy writes "it would be a fantastic relief to the rest of the employees in AI if the creators of new general formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more secured type than has actually in some cases held true." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would approximately correspond to 1014 cps. Moravec talks in regards to MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented. ^ As specified in a basic AI book: "The assertion that devices could potentially act wisely (or, possibly much better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that devices that do so are really believing (rather than simulating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is artificial narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is designed to carry out a single task. ^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our objective is to guarantee that artificial basic intelligence advantages all of mankind. ^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's new goal is creating artificial general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to develop AI that is much better than human-level at all of the human senses. ^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D tasks were recognized as being active in 2020. ^ a b c "AI timelines: What do professionals in synthetic 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 Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023. ^ "AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton stops Google and alerts of threat ahead". The New York Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is difficult to see how you can prevent 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 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 change. All that you change modifications you. ^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming. ^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Artificial Intelligence". The New York Times. The genuine threat is not AI itself however the way we deploy 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 might present existential dangers to mankind. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The first superintelligence will be the last development that humankind needs to make. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. Mitigating the threat of termination from AI must be an international top priority. ^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts warn of risk of extinction from AI. ^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York Times. We are far from producing devices that can outthink us in basic ways. ^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not provide an existential risk". Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential hazard. ^ 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 "machine intelligence with the full 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 use 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 transforming 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 attaining AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat. ^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007. ^ This list of smart qualities is based upon the topics covered by major AI books, including: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998. ^ Johnson 1987. ^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York City: Academic Press. ^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body shapes the way we believe: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The principle of proficiency". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reconsidered: The principle of proficiency". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the initial on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014. ^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the original on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019. ^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What 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 kid - the Turing Test states so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ "Scientists challenge whether computer 'Eugene Goostman' passed Turing test". BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). "People can not differentiate GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC] ^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI models like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing whatever from the bar examination to AP Biology. Here's a list of challenging tests both AI versions have actually passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Expert System Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Take Advantage Of It". Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is undependable. The Winograd Schema is outdated. Coffee is the response". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder suggested testing an AI chatbot's capability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to determine human-like intelligence". Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). "Mustafa Suleyman: My new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Artificial Intelligence" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (Second ed.). New York: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the initial 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 ). "Artificial Intelligence, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the original on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022. ^ Simon 1965, p. 96 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109. ^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008. ^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), quoted in Crevier (1993, p. 109). ^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994. ^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment". ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22. ^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see also Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212. ^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). "Reply to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007. ^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). "Behind Expert system, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York City Times. Archived from the original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system scientists and software application engineers prevented the term expert system for fear of being viewed as wild-eyed dreamers. ^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26 ^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the initial on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019. ^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20 ^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300. ^ Gubrud 1997 ^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based Upon Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Technology an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the initial on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022. ^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022. ^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410. ^ "Who coined the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., by means of Life 3.0: 'The term "AGI" was popularized by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel' ^ Wang & Goertzel 2007 ^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summer season school: June 22 - July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009". Archived from the original on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 - зимен триместър" [Elective courses 2010/2011 - winter trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limits of device intelligence: Despite development in device intelligence, artificial basic intelligence is still a significant difficulty". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early 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 become a Frankenstein's beast". 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 expert system will not be understood". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1 ): 1-9. doi:10.1057/ s41599-020-0494-4. hdl:11250/ 2726984. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 219710554. ^ McCarthy 2007b. ^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (23 November 2015). "The Doomsday Invention: Will expert system bring us utopia or destruction?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016. ^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future development in expert system: A survey of expert opinion. In Fundamental concerns 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 makers: AI takes the Torrance Test". Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185. ^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema. ^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). "Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024". Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024. ^ "Introducing OpenAI o1-preview". OpenAI. 12 September 2024. ^ Knight, Will. "OpenAI Announces a New AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024. ^ "OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved". Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024. ^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024. ^ "Next-Gen AI: OpenAI and Meta's Leap Towards Reasoning Machines". Unite.ai. 19 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024. ^ James, Alex P. (2022 ). "The Why, What, and How of Artificial General Intelligence Chip Development". IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. 14 (2 ): 333-347. arXiv:2012.06338. doi:10.1109/ TCDS.2021.3069871. ISSN 2379-8920. S2CID 228376556. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022. ^ Pei, Jing; Deng, Lei; Song, Sen; Zhao, Mingguo; Zhang, Youhui; Wu, Shuang; Wang, Guanrui; Zou, Zhe; Wu, Zhenzhi; He, Wei; Chen, Feng; Deng, Ning; Wu, Si; Wang, Yu; Wu, Yujie (2019 ). "Towards artificial general intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture". Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the 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 knowing in drug discovery". Nature Machine Intelligence. 4 (3 ): 211-221. doi:10.1038/ s42256-022-00463-x. ISSN 2522-5839. S2CID 252081559. ^ Goertzel & Pennachin 2006. ^ a b c (Kurzweil 2005, p. 260). ^ a b c Goertzel 2007. ^ Grace, Katja (2016 ). "Error in Armstrong and Sotala 2012". AI Impacts (blog). Archived from the original on 4 December 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2020. ^ a b Butz, Martin V. (1 March 2021). "Towards Strong AI". KI - Künstliche Intelligenz. 35 (1 ): 91-101. doi:10.1007/ s13218-021-00705-x. ISSN 1610-1987. S2CID 256065190. ^ Liu, Feng; Shi, Yong; Liu, Ying (2017 ). "Intelligence Quotient and Intelligence Grade of Artificial Intelligence". Annals of Data Science. 4 (2 ): 179-191. arXiv:1709.10242. doi:10.1007/ s40745-017-0109-0. S2CID 37900130. ^ Brien, Jörn (5 October 2017). "Google-KI doppelt so schlau wie Siri" [Google AI is two times 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 golden zone between narrow and basic AI". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020. Certainly, too, there are those who claim 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 arguable, but the agreement is that it is not AGI. ... If nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a happy medium in between narrow and general AI. ^ Quach, Katyanna. "A developer constructed an AI chatbot using GPT-3 that helped a guy 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, 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. might rival human intelligence in 'just a few years,' says CEO of Google's main A.I. research study lab". 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 Giant Step for Neuroscience". Tech Brew. Retrieved 8 November 2023. ^ Sandberg & Boström 2008. ^ Drachman 2005. ^ a b Russell & Norvig 2003. ^ Moravec 1988, p. 61. ^ Moravec 1998. ^ Holmgaard Mersh, Amalie (15 September 2023). "Decade-long European research study 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 broad variety of views in present research study, all of which need grounding to some degree ^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How uploading our minds to a computer system might 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 (priced estimate in" Encyclopedia.com"),. MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (priced estimate in "AITopics"),. Will Biological Computers Enable Artificially Intelligent Machines to Become Persons? Archived 13 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Anthony Tongen.


^ a b c Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 947. ^ though see Explainable expert system for interest by the field about why a program acts the method it does. ^ Chalmers, David J. (9 August 2023). "Could a Big Language Model Be Conscious?". Boston Review. ^ Seth, Anil. "Consciousness". New Scientist. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Nagel 1974. ^ "The Google engineer who 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 Artificial Intelligence 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 outweigh benefits?". 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "How we can Benefit from Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) - Unite.AI". www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. "What Will Our Society Appear Like When Expert System Is Everywhere?". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b Stevenson, Matt (8 October 2015). "Answers to Stephen Hawking's AMA are Here!". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ a b Bostrom, Nick (2017 ). " § Preferred order of arrival". Superintelligence: courses, dangers, methods (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 human beings will ruin ourselves". Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). "Climate alter an 'existential security threat' 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 Artificial Intelligence". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9. ^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious". Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). "Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ a b "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence takes a look at the 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 fascinating Facebook debate between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the dangers of strong AI". The remarkable Facebook dispute between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI (in French). Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Will Expert System Doom The Human Race Within The Next 100 Years?". HuffPost. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sotala, Kaj; Yampolskiy, Roman V. (19 December 2014). "Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a 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 risks spiralling out of control, report cautions". Financial Times. Archived from the initial on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). "Experts disagree over risk presented but artificial intelligence can not be overlooked". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ "Humanity, Security & AI, Oh My! (with Ian Bremmer & Shuman Ghosemajumder)". CAFE. 20 July 2023. Retrieved 15 September 2023. ^ Hamblin, James (9 May 2014). "But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me?". The Atlantic. Archived from the initial on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 12 December 2015. ^ Titcomb, James (30 October 2023). "Big Tech is stiring worries over AI, caution scientists". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain creator says big tech is lying about AI termination risk". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Eloundou, Tyna; Manning, Sam; Mishkin, Pamela; Rock, Daniel (17 March 2023). "GPTs are GPTs: An early look at the labor market effect capacity of big language models". OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). "OpenAI states 80% of workers could see their tasks affected by AI. These are the jobs most impacted". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk states we need universal basic earnings because 'in the future, physical work will be an option'". Business Insider. Archived from the initial on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Sources

UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the 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 Search 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 artificial basic intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a reaction to Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott's review of Kurzweil", Artificial Intelligence, vol. 171, no. 18, Special Review Issue, pp. 1161-1173, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.011, archived from the 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 initial on 29 May 2011, recovered 7 May 2011. Howe, J. (November 1994), Expert System at Edinburgh University: a Perspective, archived from the original 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", Artificial Intelligence: a paper symposium, Science Research Council. Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Artificial Intelligence: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving (5th 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 issues and attain goals on the planet in addition to humans. Moravec, Hans (1988 ), Mind Children, Harvard University Press Moravec, Hans (1998 ), "When will computer system hardware match the human brain?", Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 1, archived from the initial on 15 June 2006, obtained 23 June 2006 Nagel (1974 ), "What Is it Like to Be a Bat" (PDF), Philosophical Review, 83 (4 ): 435-50, doi:10.2307/ 2183914, JSTOR 2183914, archived (PDF) from the original 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 ), Expert System: A New Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, ISBN 978-1-5586-0467-4 NRC (1999 ), "Developments in Expert System", Funding a Transformation: Government Support for Computing Research, National Academy Press, archived from the original on 12 January 2008, 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 original on 25 July 2009, obtained 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, recovered 5 April 2009 Searle, John (1980 ), "Minds, Brains and Programs" (PDF), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (3 ): 417-457, doi:10.1017/ S0140525X00005756, S2CID 55303721, archived (PDF) from the initial on 17 March 2019, obtained 3 September 2020 Simon, H. A. (1965 ), The Shape of Automation for Men and Management, New York City: Harper & Row Turing, Alan (October 1950). "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". Mind. 59 (236 ): 433-460. doi:10.1093/ mind/LIX.236.433. ISSN 1460-2113. JSTOR 2251299. S2CID 14636783.
de Vega, Manuel; Glenberg, Arthur; Graesser, Arthur, eds. (2008 ), Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on 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 initial on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 - by means of ResearchGate.
Further reading

Aleksander, Igor (1996 ), Impossible Minds, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 978-1-8609-4036-1 Azevedo FA, Carvalho LR, Grinberg LT, Farfel J, et al. (April 2009), "Equal numbers of neuronal and nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled-up primate brain", The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 513 (5 ): 532-541, doi:10.1002/ cne.21974, PMID 19226510, S2CID 5200449, archived from the original on 18 February 2021, retrieved 4 September 2013 - via 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 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 may be called "Dyson's Law") that "Any system easy adequate to be reasonable will not be complicated enough to behave smartly, while any system complicated enough to behave wisely will be too made complex to understand." (p. 197.) Computer scientist Alex Pentland writes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead simple stupid. They work, however they work by brute force." (p. 198.). Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the initial on 26 July 2010, obtained 25 July 2010. Gleick, James, "The Fate of Free Choice" (evaluation of Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Choice, 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 identifies us from makers. For biological animals, reason and purpose originate from acting worldwide and experiencing the effects. Artificial intelligences - disembodied, 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" (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: Residing 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 intend to get rich from AI are going to have the interests of the rest of us close at heart,' ... composes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't depend on federal governments driven by campaign financing contributions [from tech companies] to push back.' ... Marcus details the needs that citizens need to make of their governments and the tech companies. They consist of transparency on how AI systems work; payment for people if their data [are] utilized to train LLMs (large language model) s and the right to approval to this usage; and the capability to hold tech companies accountable for the harms they cause by eliminating Section 230, imposing cash penalites, and passing more stringent item liability laws ... Marcus also suggests ... that a new, AI-specific federal agency, similar to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, might provide the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law professor Chinmayi Sharma ... suggests ... establish [ing] a professional licensing program for engineers that would function in a similar way to medical licenses, malpractice matches, and the Hippocratic oath in medicine. 'What if, like medical professionals,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers also swore 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 baffled human beings for years, exposes the restrictions of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder mystery competition has actually revealed that although NLP (natural-language processing) models can unbelievable accomplishments, their abilities are extremely much restricted by the quantity of context they get. This [...] might trigger [troubles] for scientists who intend to use them to do things such as examine ancient languages. Sometimes, there are few historic records on long-gone civilizations to act as training data for such a function." (p. 82.). Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: People now utilize A.I. to generate phony videos indistinguishable from genuine ones. How much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we suggest practical videos produced using expert system that really trick individuals, then they barely exist. The fakes aren't deep, and the deeps aren't fake. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in general, operating in our media as counterfeited proof. Their function much better resembles that of animations, specifically smutty ones." (p. 59.). - Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We need to 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 discussion?", The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16. Marcus, Gary, "Artificial Confidence: Even the latest, buzziest systems of synthetic general intelligence are stymmied by the very 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 initial on 3 March 2016, recovered 29 September 2007. Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1963 ), "GPS: A Program that Simulates Human Thought", in Feigenbaum, E. A.; Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, New York: McGraw-Hill. Omohundro, Steve (2008 ), The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence, provided and distributed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California. Press, Eyal, "In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition innovation lead police to overlook inconsistent evidence?", 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 tasks that require real humanlike thinking or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT appeared unable to reason realistically and tried to rely on its vast database of ... truths originated from online texts. " - Scharre, Paul, "Killer Apps: The Real Dangers of an AI Arms Race", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 3 (May/June 2019), pp. 135-44. "Today's AI technologies are powerful but undependable. Rules-based systems can not deal with circumstances their programmers did not anticipate. Learning systems are restricted by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have actually already caused catastrophe. Advanced auto-pilot features in cars, although they carry out well in some circumstances, have actually driven vehicles without alerting into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked vehicles. In the incorrect circumstance, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an instant. When an enemy is attempting to control and hack an AI system, the dangers are even higher." (p. 140.). Sutherland, J. G. (1990 ), "Holographic Model of Memory, Learning, and Expression", International Journal of Neural Systems, vol. 1-3, pp. 256-267. - Vincent, James, "Horny Robot Baby Voice: James Vincent on AI chatbots", London Review of Books, vol. 46, no. 19 (10 October 2024), pp. 29-32." [AI chatbot] programs are made possible by brand-new technologies however depend on the timelelss human tendency to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.). Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.