Artificial General Intelligence: Różnice pomiędzy wersjami

Wersja z 12:23, 3 lut 2025

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that matches or surpasses human cognitive abilities across a large range of cognitive tasks. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is restricted to particular tasks. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that significantly exceeds human cognitive capabilities. AGI is thought about among the definitions of strong AI.


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

The timeline for attaining AGI stays a subject of ongoing dispute amongst scientists and experts. As of 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or pl.velo.wiki decades; others keep it may take a century or longer; a minority believe it might never be attained; and another minority declares that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has actually revealed concerns about the quick progress towards AGI, suggesting it could be attained sooner than lots of anticipate. [7]

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

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. [11] [12] [13] Many specialists on AI have actually specified that reducing the threat of human extinction postured by AGI must be a global top priority. [14] [15] Others find the development of AGI to be too remote to provide such a threat. [16] [17]

Terminology


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

Some academic sources schedule the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience life or awareness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) has the ability to resolve one specific problem but lacks general cognitive capabilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources utilize "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness 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 hypothetical type of AGI that is a lot more usually smart than human beings, [23] while the concept of transformative AI associates with AI having a big influence on society, for instance, comparable to the agricultural or commercial revolution. [24]

A framework for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They specify 5 levels of AGI: emerging, qualified, specialist, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a qualified AGI is specified as an AI that surpasses 50% of experienced grownups in a vast array of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is similarly defined however with a limit of 100%. They think about large language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics


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

Intelligence traits


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

factor, use method, fix puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability
represent knowledge, consisting of typical sense understanding
strategy
discover
- communicate in natural language
- if necessary, integrate these skills in completion of any provided objective


Many interdisciplinary techniques (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and decision making) consider extra qualities such as imagination (the capability to form novel psychological images and principles) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that display much of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated reasoning, choice support group, robotic, evolutionary calculation, intelligent agent). There is debate about whether modern AI systems possess them to an appropriate degree.


Physical traits


Other capabilities are thought about preferable in intelligent systems, as they might affect intelligence or aid in its expression. These consist of: [30]

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


This consists of the capability to detect and react to danger. [31]

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc) and the ability to act (e.g. move and manipulate things, modification area to explore, and so on) can be preferable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly needed for an entity to certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language designs (LLMs) might already be or become AGI. Even from a less optimistic perspective on LLMs, there is no company requirement for an AGI to have a human-like form; being a silicon-based computational system suffices, supplied it can process input (language) from the external world in location of human senses. This analysis lines up with the understanding that AGI has actually never been proscribed a particular physical personification and hence does not demand a capability for locomotion or traditional "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI


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

The idea of the test is that the device has to attempt and pretend to be a man, by responding to questions put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is fairly persuading. A significant part of a jury, who must not be expert about machines, must be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete issues


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

There are lots of problems that have been conjectured to require basic intelligence to resolve as well as human beings. Examples consist of computer system vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected scenarios while fixing any real-world problem. [48] Even a specific task like translation needs a device to check out and write in both languages, follow the author's argument (reason), understand the context (knowledge), and consistently reproduce the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these issues need to be fixed simultaneously in order to reach human-level device efficiency.


However, much of these jobs can now be performed by modern big language designs. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has actually reached human-level performance on numerous standards for reading comprehension and visual reasoning. [49]

History


Classical AI


Modern AI research study began in the mid-1950s. [50] The first generation of AI researchers were encouraged that synthetic basic intelligence was possible which it would exist in just a couple of decades. [51] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: "devices 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 could develop by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was a consultant [53] on the job of making HAL 9000 as sensible as possible according to the consensus forecasts of the time. He stated in 1967, "Within a generation ... the issue of developing 'artificial intelligence' will considerably be fixed". [54]

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


However, in the early 1970s, it became obvious that researchers had grossly undervalued the trouble of the task. Funding companies became hesitant of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce useful "applied AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project revived interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that included AGI objectives like "carry on a table talk". [58] In action to this and the success of professional systems, both industry and federal government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, self-confidence in AI amazingly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the objectives of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never satisfied. [60] For the second time in twenty years, AI researchers who predicted the imminent achievement of AGI had been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a reputation for making vain promises. They ended up being hesitant to make forecasts at all [d] and avoided mention of "human level" synthetic intelligence for worry of being identified "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research


In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI attained commercial success and scholastic respectability by focusing on specific sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable outcomes and commercial applications, such as speech acknowledgment and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now used thoroughly throughout the innovation market, and research study in this vein is heavily moneyed in both academia and market. As of 2018 [update], advancement in this field was considered an emerging trend, and a fully grown phase was expected to be reached in more than ten years. [64]

At the millenium, many traditional AI researchers [65] hoped that strong AI could be developed by integrating programs that resolve different sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:


I am confident that this bottom-up path to expert system will one day meet the standard top-down path over half method, ready to supply the real-world competence and the commonsense knowledge that has been so frustratingly evasive in thinking 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 disputed. For example, 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 somehow satisfy "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches someplace in between. If the grounding considerations in this paper are valid, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is truly only one viable 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 be reached by this path (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we must even try to reach such a level, considering that it appears arriving would simply amount to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic meanings (consequently merely decreasing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]

Modern artificial general intelligence research


The term "synthetic basic 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 representative increases "the capability to please goals in a large range of environments". [68] This kind of AGI, identified by the ability to maximise a mathematical definition of intelligence rather than display 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 season school in AGI was arranged in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The first university course was given up 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT presented a course on AGI in 2018, arranged by Lex Fridman and featuring a number of guest speakers.


Since 2023 [update], a small number of computer researchers are active in AGI research, and many add to a series of AGI conferences. However, increasingly more scientists are interested in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the idea of allowing AI to continually discover and innovate like humans do.


Feasibility


Since 2023, the advancement and potential accomplishment of AGI remains a subject of extreme argument within the AI community. While standard consensus held that AGI was a remote objective, current advancements have led some scientists and industry figures to declare that early kinds of AGI may already exist. [78] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon hypothesized in 1965 that "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do". This prediction failed to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is unlikely in the 21st century due to the fact that it would require "unforeseeable and basically unforeseeable breakthroughs" 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 large as the gulf in between present space flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A more challenge is the absence of clarity in defining what intelligence entails. Does it need consciousness? Must it display the ability to set objectives in addition to pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are facilities such as planning, thinking, and causal understanding needed? Does intelligence require clearly duplicating the brain and its particular faculties? Does it need feelings? [81]

Most AI scientists believe strong AI can be achieved in the future, but some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, reject the possibility of achieving strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who think human-level AI will be achieved, but that the present level of development is such that a date can not properly be forecasted. [84] AI professionals' views on the expediency of AGI wax and wane. Four polls performed in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the average price quote amongst experts for when they would be 50% positive AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending on the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the specialists, 16.5% answered with "never" when asked the exact same concern but with a 90% confidence instead. [85] [86] Further existing AGI development factors to consider can be discovered above Tests for verifying human-level AGI.


A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute discovered that "over [a] 60-year amount of time there is a strong predisposition towards predicting the arrival of human-level AI as between 15 and 25 years from the time the prediction was made". They evaluated 95 forecasts made between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]

In 2023, Microsoft scientists released a detailed examination of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, we think that it might reasonably be seen as an early (yet still insufficient) version of a synthetic general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outshines 99% of humans 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 actually currently been accomplished with frontier designs. They composed that unwillingness to this view comes from 4 main reasons: a "healthy suspicion about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or techniques", a "devotion to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "concern about the economic implications of AGI". [91]

2023 also marked the development of large multimodal designs (large language models efficient in processing or generating multiple modalities 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 react". According to Mira Murati, this ability to believe before responding represents a brand-new, additional paradigm. It improves model outputs by investing more computing power when generating the response, whereas the model scaling paradigm improves outputs by increasing the design size, training information and training calculate power. [93] [94]

An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, claimed in 2024 that the company had actually accomplished AGI, mentioning, "In my viewpoint, we have actually already achieved AGI and it's a lot more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "much better than any human at any job", it is "better than many people at the majority of jobs." He also dealt with criticisms that big language designs (LLMs) merely follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing process to the clinical technique of observing, assuming, and verifying. These statements have sparked dispute, as they depend on a broad and non-traditional meaning of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence across all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models show exceptional versatility, they may not fully meet this standard. Notably, Kazemi's remarks came shortly after OpenAI eliminated "AGI" from the regards to its collaboration with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the business's strategic objectives. [95]

Timescales


Progress in artificial intelligence has traditionally gone through durations of fast progress separated by durations when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were essential advances in hardware, software or both to develop area for further development. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the computer hardware available in the twentieth century was not enough to carry out deep learning, which needs great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the intro to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that estimates of the time required before a truly flexible AGI is built differ from ten 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. in between 2015 and 2045) was possible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have actually given a vast array of opinions on whether progress will be this fast. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions found a bias towards predicting that the onset of AGI would happen within 16-26 years for contemporary and historic predictions alike. That paper has been criticized for how it classified opinions as professional or non-expert. [104]

In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton developed a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competition with a top-5 test mistake rate of 15.3%, substantially better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the conventional technique used a weighted amount of ratings from various pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered as the preliminary ground-breaker of the current deep learning wave. [105]

In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu conducted intelligence tests on publicly available and freely accessible weak AI such as Google AI, Apple's Siri, and others. At the maximum, these AIs reached an IQ worth of about 47, which corresponds around to a six-year-old child in very first grade. An adult comes to about 100 on average. Similar tests were brought out in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching a maximum worth of 27. [106] [107]

In 2020, OpenAI developed GPT-3, a language design efficient in performing many diverse jobs without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat post, while there is agreement that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is considered by some to be too advanced to be classified as a narrow AI system. [108]

In the 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 modifications to the chatbot to comply with their safety guidelines; Rohrer disconnected Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

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

In 2023, Microsoft Research published a study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it showed more basic intelligence than previous AI designs and showed human-level efficiency in jobs spanning numerous domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study stimulated a dispute on whether GPT-4 might be considered an early, incomplete variation of artificial general intelligence, stressing the requirement for more expedition and examination of such systems. [111]

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

The idea that this things might in fact get smarter than people - a few people thought that, [...] But many individuals thought it was way off. And I thought it was method off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years and even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.


In May 2023, Demis Hassabis likewise said that "The development in the last few years has actually been quite unbelievable", which he sees no reason that it would slow down, anticipating AGI within a years or perhaps a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, mentioned his expectation that within 5 years, AI would can passing any test a minimum of in addition to human beings. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI staff member, approximated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably possible". [115]

Whole brain emulation


While the development of transformer models like in ChatGPT is thought about the most appealing course to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can function as an alternative approach. With entire brain simulation, a brain model is constructed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and after that copying and simulating it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation design must be adequately devoted to the original, so that it behaves in practically the same way as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a type of brain simulation that is gone over in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research purposes. It has been gone over in synthetic intelligence research study [103] as an approach to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that might deliver the needed detailed understanding are enhancing rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] anticipates that a map of enough quality will end up being offered on a comparable timescale to the computing power required to emulate it.


Early estimates


For low-level brain simulation, a really effective cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be required, given the massive quantity of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells has on average 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 declines with age, supporting by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A quote of the brain's processing power, based on an easy switch design for nerve cell activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

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


Current research study


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


Criticisms of simulation-based methods


The synthetic nerve cell model presumed by Kurzweil and utilized in numerous existing artificial neural network executions is simple compared with biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely need to catch the in-depth cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, currently 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 require computational powers several orders of magnitude bigger than Kurzweil's estimate. In addition, the price quotes do not represent glial cells, which are understood to play a role in cognitive procedures. [125]

An essential criticism of the simulated brain method derives from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is a necessary aspect of human intelligence and is necessary to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is correct, any completely functional brain design will need to include more than just the nerve cells (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as a choice, but it is unknown whether this would be adequate.


Philosophical point of view


"Strong AI" as defined in philosophy


In 1980, thinker John Searle created the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese room argument. [128] He proposed a difference in between 2 hypotheses about artificial intelligence: [f]

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


The first one he called "strong" because it makes a more powerful statement: it presumes something unique has occurred to the device that exceeds those capabilities that we can test. The behaviour of a "weak AI" device would be exactly identical to a "strong AI" maker, but the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This use is likewise common in scholastic AI research study and textbooks. [129]

In contrast to Searle and traditional AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil utilize the term "strong AI" to indicate "human level synthetic general intelligence". [102] This is not the same as Searle's strong AI, unless it is assumed that consciousness is needed for human-level AGI. Academic theorists such as Searle do not believe that is the case, and to most expert system scientists the concern is out-of-scope. [130]

Mainstream AI is most thinking about how a program acts. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they do not care if you call it real or a simulation." [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no need to understand if it actually has mind - indeed, there would be no way to inform. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is equivalent to the statement "synthetic general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for given, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for scholastic AI research study, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are two different things.


Consciousness


Consciousness can have numerous significances, and some elements play substantial roles in science fiction and the ethics of expert system:


Sentience (or "phenomenal awareness"): The capability to "feel" understandings or feelings subjectively, rather than the ability to factor about perceptions. Some theorists, such as David Chalmers, utilize the term "awareness" to refer specifically to extraordinary consciousness, which is roughly equivalent to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience develops is known as the tough issue of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel explained in 1974 that it "seems like" something to be mindful. If we are not mindful, then it doesn't feel like anything. Nagel utilizes the example of a bat: we can smartly ask "what does it seem like to be a bat?" However, we are not likely to ask "what does it feel like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat appears to be conscious (i.e., has awareness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer declared that the company's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually accomplished sentience, though this claim was widely contested by other specialists. [135]

Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a different individual, specifically to be purposely conscious of one's own ideas. This is opposed to just being the "subject of one's believed"-an os or debugger is able to be "mindful of itself" (that is, to represent itself in the same method it represents everything else)-however this is not what individuals usually suggest when they use the term "self-awareness". [g]

These qualities have an ethical dimension. AI sentience would give rise to concerns of well-being and legal security, likewise to animals. [136] Other aspects of awareness associated to cognitive capabilities are also relevant to the idea of AI rights. [137] Determining how to incorporate advanced AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emerging concern. [138]

Benefits


AGI could have a broad variety of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI might assist alleviate different issues worldwide such as appetite, hardship and health issue. [139]

AGI could enhance performance and efficiency in the majority of tasks. For instance, in public health, AGI might accelerate medical research, especially versus cancer. [140] It could take care of the senior, [141] and equalize access to fast, top quality medical diagnostics. It might provide enjoyable, cheap and customized education. [141] The need to work to subsist might end up being obsolete if the wealth produced is properly redistributed. [141] [142] This also raises the question of the location of humans in a radically automated society.


AGI might also help to make logical choices, and to anticipate and prevent catastrophes. It might likewise help to profit of possibly catastrophic innovations such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while avoiding the associated dangers. [143] If an AGI's primary goal is to prevent existential disasters such as human extinction (which could be difficult if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be true), [144] it could take procedures to drastically lower the threats [143] while lessening the effect of these measures on our lifestyle.


Risks


Existential dangers


AGI might represent multiple kinds of existential danger, which are risks that threaten "the early termination of Earth-originating intelligent life or the permanent and extreme damage of its potential for desirable future development". [145] The danger of human extinction from AGI has been the subject of numerous arguments, however there is also the possibility that the advancement of AGI would cause a permanently problematic future. Notably, it could be utilized to spread and maintain the set of values of whoever develops it. If humankind still has moral blind areas comparable to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, preventing moral progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI could help with mass security and indoctrination, which could be used to develop a stable repressive worldwide totalitarian regime. [147] [148] There is also a danger for the makers themselves. If machines that are sentient or otherwise worthy of ethical factor to consider are mass created in the future, engaging in a civilizational path that indefinitely overlooks their well-being and interests might be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI might improve mankind's future and help lower other existential threats, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for continuing with due caution", not for "deserting AI". [147]

Risk of loss of control and human termination


The thesis that AI positions an existential risk for humans, which this danger needs more attention, is questionable however has been backed in 2023 by lots of public figures, AI scientists 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 criticized widespread indifference:


So, dealing with possible futures of incalculable benefits and dangers, the specialists are surely doing whatever possible to make sure the very best outcome, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll arrive in a few decades,' would we just respond, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is basically what is taking place with AI. [153]

The prospective fate of humanity has sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The comparison specifies that greater intelligence permitted humanity to dominate gorillas, which are now vulnerable in manner ins which they could not have actually expected. As a result, the gorilla has become an endangered types, not out of malice, but simply as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to dominate humankind and that we need to take care not to anthropomorphize them and analyze their intents as we would for human beings. He stated that individuals won't be "smart sufficient to develop super-intelligent machines, yet unbelievably stupid to the point of giving it moronic goals without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the principle of instrumental merging suggests that nearly whatever their goals, smart representatives will have reasons to attempt to survive and acquire more power as intermediary steps to achieving these objectives. And that this does not need having feelings. [156]

Many scholars who are worried about existential risk advocate for more research study into fixing the "control issue" to address the concern: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers execute to increase the possibility that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, instead of damaging, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is made complex by the AI arms race (which could cause a race to the bottom of safety preventative measures in order to release products before competitors), [159] and using AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can present existential threat also has critics. Skeptics normally state that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI sidetrack from other problems associated with current AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for lots of people outside of the technology industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are already perceived as though they were AGI, resulting in additional misconception and worry. [162]

Skeptics in some cases charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an irrational belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an illogical belief in a supreme God. [163] Some researchers believe that the communication campaigns on AI existential threat by certain 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, in addition to other market leaders and researchers, provided a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI must be a global priority together with other societal-scale dangers such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]

Mass joblessness


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


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

Everyone can enjoy a life of elegant leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or the majority of people can wind up badly bad if the machine-owners successfully lobby versus wealth redistribution. Up until now, the pattern seems to be toward the second choice, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality


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

See likewise


Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive capabilities similar to those of the animal or human brain
AI effect
AI security - Research area on making AI safe and advantageous
AI alignment - AI conformance to the desired objective
A.I. Rising - 2018 movie 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 revealed by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research study centre
General game playing - Ability of artificial intelligence to play different games
Generative synthetic intelligence - AI system efficient in producing content in action to prompts
Human Brain Project - Scientific research study task
Intelligence amplification - Use of information innovation to enhance human intelligence (IA).
Machine principles - Moral behaviours of man-made devices.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task learning - Solving numerous maker discovering jobs at the same time.
Neural scaling law - Statistical law in artificial intelligence.
Outline of artificial intelligence - Overview of and topical guide to expert system.
Transhumanism - Philosophical movement.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or kind of synthetic intelligence.
Transfer learning - Artificial intelligence method.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competition.
Hardware for artificial intelligence - Hardware specifically created and optimized for synthetic intelligence.
Weak artificial intelligence - Form of expert system.


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 space.
^ AI founder John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet characterize in basic what type of computational treatments we desire to call intelligent. " [26] (For a conversation of some definitions of intelligence used by artificial intelligence scientists, see philosophy of synthetic intelligence.).
^ 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 study, instead of fundamental undirected research". [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy composes "it would be a great relief to the remainder of the employees in AI if the inventors of new general formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more guarded type than has in some cases held true." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is utilized. 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 standard AI textbook: "The assertion that machines could perhaps act wisely (or, possibly much better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by theorists, and the assertion that makers that do so are really believing (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 synthetic narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is designed to perform a single job.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to guarantee that synthetic general intelligence advantages all of humankind.
^ 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 develop AI that is better than human-level at all of the human senses.
^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D jobs were determined as being active in 2020.
^ a b c "AI timelines: What do experts 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 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 hard 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 alter. All that you alter changes you.
^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming.
^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Artificial Intelligence". The New York City Times. The genuine risk is not AI itself however the method we deploy it.
^ "Impressed by synthetic intelligence? Experts state AGI is following, and it has 'existential' dangers". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might pose existential dangers to humankind.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The first superintelligence will be the last invention that humanity requires to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. Mitigating the threat of extinction from AI ought to be a worldwide top priority.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI specialists alert 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 developing machines that can outthink us in general ways.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not present an existential risk". Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential threat.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the original on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil explains strong AI as "machine intelligence with the full series of human intelligence.".
^ "The Age of Artificial Intelligence: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the original on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they utilize for "human-level" intelligence in the physical symbol system hypothesis.
^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the original on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
^ "What is artificial superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Expert system is changing our world - it is on all of us to ensure that it goes well". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to achieving AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat.
^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of smart qualities is based on the subjects covered by significant 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: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body shapes the way we think: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: The idea of skills". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reconsidered: The idea of competence". 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 takes place when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ "Eugene Goostman is a real boy - the Turing Test says so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ "Scientists challenge 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 models like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing everything from the bar examination to AP Biology. Here's a list of difficult exams 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 Profit From It". Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is unreliable. The Winograd Schema is outdated. Coffee is the answer". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder recommended checking 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 brand-new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Expert System" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Expert System (Second ed.). New York City: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".).
^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Specifying 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 Expert System. 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 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 ), quoted in Crevier (1993, p. 109).
^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994.
^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment".
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22.
^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see likewise Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212.
^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). "Respond to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007.
^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). "Behind Artificial Intelligence, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York City Times. Archived from the initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer researchers and software engineers avoided the term artificial intelligence for worry 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 Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the initial on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the 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 created the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the initial on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., via 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 initial 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 development in machine intelligence, artificial basic intelligence is still a major challenge". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early 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 monster". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 17 September 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Deane, George (2022 ). "Machines That Feel and Think: The Role of Affective Feelings and Mental Action in (Artificial) General Intelligence". Artificial Life. 28 (3 ): 289-309. doi:10.1162/ artl_a_00368. ISSN 1064-5462. PMID 35881678. S2CID 251069071.
^ a b c Clocksin 2003.
^ Fjelland, Ragnar (17 June 2020). "Why basic synthetic intelligence will not be understood". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1 ): 1-9. doi:10.1057/ s41599-020-0494-4. hdl:11250/ 2726984. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 219710554.
^ McCarthy 2007b.
^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (23 November 2015). "The Doomsday Invention: Will synthetic intelligence bring us paradise or damage?". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future development in expert system: A survey of professional viewpoint. In Fundamental problems of artificial intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.
^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, modified by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia
^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023.
^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The 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 initial on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
^ Pei, Jing; Deng, Lei; Song, Sen; Zhao, Mingguo; Zhang, Youhui; Wu, Shuang; Wang, Guanrui; Zou, Zhe; Wu, Zhenzhi; He, Wei; Chen, Feng; Deng, Ning; Wu, Si; Wang, Yu; Wu, Yujie (2019 ). "Towards synthetic basic intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture". Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the original on 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
^ Pandey, Mohit; Fernandez, Michael; Gentile, Francesco; Isayev, Olexandr; Tropsha, Alexander; Stern, Abraham C.; Cherkasov, Artem (March 2022). "The transformational function of GPU computing and deep knowing in drug discovery". Nature Machine Intelligence. 4 (3 ): 211-221. doi:10.1038/ s42256-022-00463-x. ISSN 2522-5839. S2CID 252081559.
^ Goertzel & Pennachin 2006.
^ a b c (Kurzweil 2005, p. 260).
^ a b c Goertzel 2007.
^ Grace, Katja (2016 ). "Error in Armstrong and Sotala 2012". AI Impacts (blog). Archived from the initial on 4 December 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2020.
^ a b Butz, Martin V. (1 March 2021). "Towards Strong AI". KI - Künstliche Intelligenz. 35 (1 ): 91-101. doi:10.1007/ s13218-021-00705-x. ISSN 1610-1987. S2CID 256065190.
^ Liu, Feng; Shi, Yong; Liu, Ying (2017 ). "Intelligence Quotient and Intelligence Grade of Artificial Intelligence". Annals of Data Science. 4 (2 ): 179-191. arXiv:1709.10242. doi:10.1007/ s40745-017-0109-0. S2CID 37900130.
^ Brien, Jörn (5 October 2017). "Google-KI doppelt so schlau wie Siri" [Google AI is twice as clever as Siri - but a six-year-old beats both] (in German). Archived from the initial on 3 January 2019. Retrieved 2 January 2019.
^ Grossman, Gary (3 September 2020). "We're going into the AI golden zone between narrow and basic AI". VentureBeat. Archived from the initial on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020. Certainly, too, there are those who declare we are currently seeing an early example of an AGI system in the just recently revealed GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. ... So is GPT-3 the first example of an AGI system? This is arguable, but the agreement is that it is not AGI. ... If absolutely nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a middle ground in between narrow and general AI.
^ Quach, Katyanna. "A developer built 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 initial on 16 October 2021. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
^ Wiggers, Kyle (13 May 2022), "DeepMind's new AI can carry out over 600 tasks, from playing video games to managing robotics", TechCrunch, archived from the initial on 16 June 2022, retrieved 12 June 2022.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (22 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ Metz, Cade (1 May 2023). "' The Godfather of A.I.' Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead". The New York City Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ Bove, Tristan. "A.I. could rival human intelligence in 'just a couple of years,' states CEO of Google's main A.I. research lab". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO states AI might pass human tests in 5 years". Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead".
^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). "Why everybody appears to disagree on how to specify Artificial General Intelligence". Fast Company.
^ Nosta, John (5 January 2024). "The Accelerating Path to Artificial General Intelligence". Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 March 2024.
^ Hickey, Alex. "Whole Brain Emulation: A Huge Step for Neuroscience". Tech Brew. Retrieved 8 November 2023.
^ Sandberg & Boström 2008.
^ Drachman 2005.
^ a b Russell & Norvig 2003.
^ Moravec 1988, p. 61.
^ Moravec 1998.
^ Holmgaard Mersh, Amalie (15 September 2023). "Decade-long European research project maps the human brain". euractiv.
^ Swaminathan, Nikhil (January-February 2011). "Glia-the other brain cells". Discover. Archived from the initial on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
^ de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser 2008. A large range of views in current research, all of which require grounding to some degree
^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How uploading our minds to a computer system may end up being possible". The Conversation. Retrieved 8 November 2023.
^ Searle 1980
^ For instance: Russell & Norvig 2003,
Oxford University Press Dictionary of Psychology Archived 3 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine (quoted in" Encyclopedia.com"),.
MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (priced quote in "AITopics"),.
Will Biological Computers Enable Artificially Intelligent Machines to Become Persons? Archived 13 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Anthony Tongen.




^ a b c Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 947.
^ though see Explainable artificial intelligence for interest by the field about why a program behaves the way it does.
^ Chalmers, David J. (9 August 2023). "Could a Large Language Model Be Conscious?". Boston Review.
^ Seth, Anil. "Consciousness". New Scientist. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Nagel 1974.
^ "The Google engineer who believes the business's AI has actually come to life". The Washington Post. 11 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Nosta, John (18 December 2023). "Should Artificial Intelligence Have Rights?". Psychology Today. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Akst, Daniel (10 April 2023). "Should Robots With Artificial Intelligence Have Moral or Legal Rights?". The Wall Street Journal.
^ "Artificial General Intelligence - Do [es] the cost exceed benefits?". 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 Expert System Is Everywhere?". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Stevenson, Matt (8 October 2015). "Answers to Stephen Hawking's AMA are Here!". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ a b Bostrom, Nick (2017 ). " § Preferred order of arrival". Superintelligence: paths, risks, strategies (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, UK; New York, New York City, USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2.
^ Piper, Kelsey (19 November 2018). "How technological progress 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 threat' to Australia, Senate query states". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023.
^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York City, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6.
^ a b Ord, Toby (2020 ). "Chapter 5: Future Risks, Unaligned Expert System". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9.
^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious". Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). "Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023.
^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ a b "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ "Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence takes a look at the ramifications of expert system - 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 Facebook debate in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the threats of strong AI". The remarkable Facebook argument 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 survey". Physica Scripta. 90 (1 ): 018001. doi:10.1088/ 0031-8949/90/ 1/018001. ISSN 0031-8949.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (First ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2.
^ Chow, Andrew R.; Perrigo, Billy (16 February 2023). "The AI Arms Race Is On. Start Worrying". TIME. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Tetlow, Gemma (12 January 2017). "AI arms race threats spiralling out of control, report cautions". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). "Experts disagree over risk postured however synthetic 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 researchers". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain creator says big tech is lying about AI extinction 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 impact potential of large language models". OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). "OpenAI says 80% of employees could see their tasks impacted by AI. These are the jobs most impacted". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk states we require universal basic income due to the fact that 'in the future, physical work will be an option'". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
Sources


UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the initial on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021.
Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press.
Clocksin, William (August 2003), "Artificial intelligence and the future", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007.
Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous 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: Expert System and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World, Michael Joseph, ISBN 978-0-7181-2401-4.
Goertzel, Ben; Pennachin, Cassio, eds. (2006 ), Artificial General Intelligence (PDF), Springer, ISBN 978-3-5402-3733-4, archived from the initial (PDF) on 20 March 2013.
Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), "Human-level synthetic basic intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a response to Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott's critique of Kurzweil", Expert system, vol. 171, no. 18, Special Review Issue, pp. 1161-1173, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.011, archived from the initial on 7 January 2016, obtained 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), Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University: a Perspective, archived from the original on 17 August 2007, obtained 30 August 2007.
Johnson, Mark (1987 ), The body in the mind, Chicago, ISBN 978-0-2264-0317-5.
Kurzweil, Ray (2005 ), The Singularity is Near, Viking Press.
Lighthill, Professor Sir James (1973 ), "Expert System: A General Survey", Expert System: a paper symposium, Science Research Council.
Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Expert System: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving (fifth ed.), The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., p. 720, ISBN 978-0-8053-4780-7.
McCarthy, John (2007b). What is Expert system?. Stanford University. The supreme effort is to make computer programs that can fix problems and attain goals worldwide 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, obtained 7 November 2009
Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1976 ). "Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search". Communications of the ACM. 19 (3 ): 113-126. doi:10.1145/ 360018.360022.
Nilsson, Nils (1998 ), Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, ISBN 978-1-5586-0467-4
NRC (1999 ), "Developments in Artificial Intelligence", Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research, National Academy Press, archived from the initial on 12 January 2008, recovered 29 September 2007
Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Rational Approach, New York: Oxford University Press, archived from the initial on 25 July 2009, retrieved 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 original on 25 March 2020, retrieved 5 April 2009
Searle, John (1980 ), "Minds, Brains and Programs" (PDF), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (3 ): 417-457, doi:10.1017/ S0140525X00005756, S2CID 55303721, archived (PDF) from the initial on 17 March 2019, recovered 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 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 - 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 numbers of neuronal and nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled-up primate brain", The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 513 (5 ): 532-541, doi:10.1002/ cne.21974, PMID 19226510, S2CID 5200449, archived from the initial on 18 February 2021, obtained 4 September 2013 - via ResearchGate
Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Expert System Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the original on 23 July 2014, obtained 31 August 2012
Cukier, Kenneth, "Ready for Robots? How to Think of the Future of AI", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 4 (July/August 2019), pp. 192-98. George Dyson, historian of computing, composes (in what may be called "Dyson's Law") that "Any system easy enough to be easy to understand will not be complicated enough to act smartly, while any system complicated enough to act wisely will be too complicated to comprehend." (p. 197.) Computer researcher Alex Pentland writes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead easy silly. They work, however they work by strength." (p. 198.).
Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the original on 26 July 2010, retrieved 25 July 2010.
Gleick, James, "The Fate of Free Will" (evaluation of Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Choice, Princeton University Press, 2023, 333 pp.), The New York City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. "Agency is what differentiates us from makers. For biological animals, reason and function originate from acting worldwide 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 initial (PDF) on 6 June 2013.
- Halpern, Sue, "The Coming Tech Autocracy" (evaluation of Verity Harding, AI Needs You: How We Can Change AI's Future and Save Our Own, Princeton University Press, 274 pp.; Gary Marcus, Taming Silicon Valley: How We Can Ensure That AI Works for Us, MIT Press, 235 pp.; Daniela Rus and Gregory Mone, The Mind's Mirror: Risk and Reward in the Age of AI, Norton, 280 pp.; Madhumita Murgia, Code Dependent: Living in the Shadow of AI, Henry Holt, 311 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. "' We can't reasonably anticipate that those who intend to get abundant from AI are going to have the interests of the rest people close at heart,' ... writes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't depend on federal governments driven by campaign financing contributions [from tech business] to push back.' ... Marcus information the needs that people should make of their federal governments and the tech business. They include transparency on how AI systems work; compensation for people if their information [are] used to train LLMs (large language design) s and the right to grant this use; and the ability to hold tech business liable for the damages they trigger by removing Section 230, enforcing 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, may supply the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law professor Chinmayi Sharma ... recommends ... establish [ing] a professional licensing regime for engineers that would function in a comparable method to medical licenses, malpractice fits, and the Hippocratic oath in medication. 'What if, like physicians,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers also vowed 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 years, reveals the restrictions of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder mystery competitors has actually revealed that although NLP (natural-language processing) models can amazing accomplishments, their capabilities are quite limited by the quantity of context they get. This [...] could cause [problems] for scientists who wish to use them to do things such as examine ancient languages. In many cases, there are few historic records on long-gone civilizations to work as training data for such a purpose." (p. 82.).
Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: People now utilize A.I. to produce fake videos equivalent from genuine ones. How much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we mean sensible videos produced utilizing synthetic intelligence that actually trick individuals, then they barely exist. The phonies aren't deep, and the deeps aren't fake. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in basic, operating in our media as counterfeited proof. Their function much better resembles that of animations, particularly smutty ones." (p. 59.).
- Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We need to avoid humanizing machine-learning designs used in clinical research study", Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81.
Lepore, Jill, "The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a device a discussion?", The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16.
Marcus, Gary, "Artificial Confidence: Even the newest, buzziest systems of synthetic basic 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 (2nd ed.), Natick, Massachusetts: A. K. Peters, ISBN 1-5688-1205-1.
Moravec, Hans (1976 ), The Role of Raw Power in Intelligence, archived from the original on 3 March 2016, retrieved 29 September 2007.
Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1963 ), "GPS: A Program that Simulates Human Thought", in Feigenbaum, E. A.; Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, New York City: McGraw-Hill.
Omohundro, Steve (2008 ), The Nature of Self-Improving Expert system, presented and dispersed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California.
Press, Eyal, "In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition technology lead cops to ignore contradictory evidence?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26.
Roivainen, Eka, "AI's IQ: ChatGPT aced a [basic intelligence] test however revealed that intelligence can not be determined by IQ alone", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 1 (July/August 2023), p. 7. "Despite its high IQ, ChatGPT fails at jobs that require genuine humanlike reasoning or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT appeared unable to reason realistically and tried to depend on its huge 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 but undependable. Rules-based systems can not deal with circumstances their developers did not prepare for. Learning systems are restricted by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have actually already caused tragedy. Advanced autopilot features in vehicles, although they carry out well in some situations, have actually driven vehicles without warning into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked cars. In the incorrect circumstance, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an instant. When an opponent is attempting to manipulate and hack an AI system, the threats are even greater." (p. 140.).
Sutherland, J. G. (1990 ), "Holographic Model of Memory, Learning, and Expression", International Journal of Neural Systems, vol. 1-3, pp. 256-267.
- Vincent, James, "Horny Robot Baby Voice: James Vincent on AI chatbots", London Review of Books, vol. 46, no. 19 (10 October 2024), pp. 29-32." [AI chatbot] programs are enabled by new innovations but depend on the timelelss human propensity to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.).
Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.