Artificial General Intelligence: Różnice pomiędzy wersjami

Aktualna wersja na dzień 09:58, 5 lut 2025

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


Creating AGI is a main objective of AI research and of companies such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 survey determined 72 active AGI research study and development tasks throughout 37 countries. [4]

The timeline for attaining AGI remains a topic of continuous dispute among researchers and experts. As of 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or years; others preserve it might take a century or longer; a minority think it might never be accomplished; and another minority claims that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has revealed issues about the fast progress towards AGI, suggesting it might be achieved quicker than many expect. [7]

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

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. [11] [12] [13] Many professionals on AI have mentioned that alleviating the danger of human extinction posed by AGI needs to be a worldwide concern. [14] [15] Others find the development of AGI to be too remote to present such a threat. [16] [17]

Terminology


AGI is likewise known as strong AI, [18] [19] full AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level smart AI, or general intelligent action. [21]

Some academic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience sentience or consciousness. [a] In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to resolve one particular issue but does not have general cognitive abilities. [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 humans. [a]

Related principles consist of artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical kind of AGI that is a lot more normally smart than humans, [23] while the notion of transformative AI connects to AI having a big impact on society, for example, comparable to the farming or industrial transformation. [24]

A structure for classifying AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They define 5 levels of AGI: accc.rcec.sinica.edu.tw emerging, competent, specialist, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a qualified AGI is defined as an AI that outshines 50% of experienced grownups in a wide variety of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is likewise specified but with a limit of 100%. They think about big language designs like or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics


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

Intelligence qualities


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

factor, usage method, solve puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability
represent knowledge, consisting of sound judgment knowledge
plan
learn
- interact in natural language
- if required, incorporate these abilities in completion of any given objective


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

Computer-based systems that exhibit a lot of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated reasoning, choice support system, robot, evolutionary computation, intelligent agent). There is dispute about whether modern AI systems have them to an appropriate degree.


Physical qualities


Other abilities are considered desirable in smart systems, as they may affect intelligence or aid in its expression. These consist of: [30]

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


This includes the ability to discover and react to threat. [31]

Although the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the ability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate items, modification place to explore, etc) can be desirable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical abilities are not strictly required for an entity to certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that large language designs (LLMs) might already be or become AGI. Even from a less positive viewpoint on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like type; being a silicon-based computational system is adequate, supplied it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This analysis lines up with the understanding that AGI has actually never ever been proscribed a particular physical personification and hence does not demand a capacity for locomotion or conventional "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI


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

The idea of the test is that the device needs to attempt and pretend to be a man, by responding to questions put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is fairly persuading. A significant portion of a jury, who ought to not be professional about makers, need to be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete issues


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

There are many problems that have actually been conjectured to require basic intelligence to solve as well as human beings. Examples include computer system vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected situations while fixing any real-world problem. [48] Even a particular task like translation requires a machine to check out and write in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), understand the context (understanding), and faithfully reproduce the author's initial intent (social intelligence). All of these issues need to be resolved simultaneously in order to reach human-level maker performance.


However, much of these tasks can now be performed by modern-day large language models. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has reached human-level efficiency on many standards for reading comprehension and visual thinking. [49]

History


Classical AI


Modern AI research began in the mid-1950s. [50] The first generation of AI scientists were persuaded that synthetic basic intelligence was possible which 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 man can do." [52]

Their predictions were the motivation for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI scientists believed they might create by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was an expert [53] on the project 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 creating 'expert system' will considerably be fixed". [54]

Several classical AI tasks, 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 ended up being obvious that researchers had grossly underestimated the difficulty of the project. Funding agencies ended up being doubtful of AGI and put scientists under increasing pressure to produce helpful "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 goals like "continue a casual conversation". [58] In response to this and the success of expert systems, both industry and government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI spectacularly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never satisfied. [60] For the second time in twenty years, AI researchers who anticipated the imminent achievement of AGI had actually been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a credibility for making vain guarantees. They ended up being unwilling to make forecasts at all [d] and avoided reference of "human level" artificial 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 particular sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable outcomes and industrial applications, such as speech recognition and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now utilized extensively throughout the technology industry, and research in this vein is heavily moneyed in both academic community and industry. As of 2018 [upgrade], development in this field was thought about an emerging trend, and a fully grown stage was expected to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]

At the turn of the century, numerous mainstream AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI could be established by integrating programs that solve different sub-problems. Hans Moravec composed in 1988:


I am confident that this bottom-up route to expert system will one day fulfill the standard top-down path majority way, ready to offer the real-world proficiency and the commonsense knowledge that has been so frustratingly elusive in thinking programs. Fully smart makers will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven uniting the two efforts. [65]

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


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

Modern artificial basic intelligence research study


The term "synthetic basic intelligence" was utilized as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation of the ramifications of fully 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 goals in a large range of environments". [68] This kind of AGI, identified by the capability to maximise a mathematical definition of intelligence rather than display human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal artificial intelligence. [70]

The term AGI was re-introduced and popularized by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research study 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 organized in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The first university course was provided in 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT presented a course on AGI in 2018, arranged by Lex Fridman and featuring a variety of guest speakers.


As of 2023 [update], a small number of computer scientists are active in AGI research, and numerous contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, increasingly more scientists are interested in open-ended knowing, [76] [77] which is the idea of enabling AI to constantly find out and innovate like humans do.


Feasibility


As of 2023, the development and prospective accomplishment of AGI remains a subject of extreme dispute within the AI neighborhood. While standard agreement held that AGI was a distant objective, current developments have actually led some scientists and market figures to declare that early kinds of AGI may currently exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do". This forecast stopped working to come true. 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 fundamentally unpredictable advancements" 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 between present area flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A further challenge is the absence of clearness in defining what intelligence entails. Does it need consciousness? Must it show the ability to set objectives in addition to pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if model sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as preparation, reasoning, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence need clearly replicating the brain and its particular professors? Does it require feelings? [81]

Most AI scientists believe strong AI can be accomplished in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of accomplishing strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who think human-level AI will be accomplished, however that today level of progress is such that a date can not accurately be forecasted. [84] AI professionals' views on the expediency of AGI wax and subside. Four polls conducted in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the average estimate amongst professionals for when they would be 50% confident AGI would show up was 2040 to 2050, depending on the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the experts, 16.5% addressed with "never ever" when asked the exact same question but with a 90% confidence rather. [85] [86] Further present AGI development factors to consider can be discovered above Tests for validating human-level AGI.


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

In 2023, Microsoft scientists published a comprehensive examination of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, we think that it could reasonably be considered as an early (yet still insufficient) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 surpasses 99% of human beings on the Torrance tests of imaginative thinking. [89] [90]

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig composed in 2023 that a considerable level of basic intelligence has actually currently been accomplished with frontier designs. They wrote that unwillingness to this view comes from four main factors: a "healthy hesitation about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or methods", a "commitment to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "issue about the economic ramifications of AGI". [91]

2023 likewise marked the emergence of big multimodal models (large language designs efficient in processing or producing multiple methods such as text, audio, and images). [92]

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

An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the business had attained AGI, stating, "In my opinion, we have actually currently accomplished 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 "much better than the majority of people at the majority of jobs." He likewise attended to criticisms that large language models (LLMs) merely follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing procedure to the clinical method of observing, assuming, and verifying. These statements have sparked debate, as they count 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 remarkable adaptability, they may not totally meet this requirement. Notably, Kazemi's comments came shortly after OpenAI got rid of "AGI" from the regards to its collaboration with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the business's strategic intentions. [95]

Timescales


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

In the intro to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel says that estimates of the time needed before a genuinely flexible AGI is constructed differ from 10 years to over a century. As of 2007 [update], the agreement in the AGI research study neighborhood seemed to be that the timeline gone over by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have given a vast array of opinions on whether progress will be this rapid. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions discovered a bias towards anticipating that the onset of AGI would occur within 16-26 years for modern-day and historic forecasts alike. That paper has been criticized for how it categorized viewpoints as expert or non-expert. [104]

In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton developed a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competitors with a top-5 test error rate of 15.3%, significantly much better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the standard method utilized a weighted sum of scores from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered the initial ground-breaker of the present deep learning wave. [105]

In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu carried out intelligence tests on publicly available and easily accessible weak AI such as Google AI, Apple's Siri, and others. At the optimum, these AIs reached an IQ value of about 47, which corresponds approximately to a six-year-old child in very first grade. A grownup concerns about 100 usually. Similar tests were carried out in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching a maximum value of 27. [106] [107]

In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language model capable of performing lots of diverse tasks without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat post, while there is consensus that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is thought about by some to be too advanced to be classified as a narrow AI system. [108]

In the exact same year, Jason Rohrer used his GPT-3 account to establish 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 detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

In 2022, DeepMind developed Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of carrying out 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 exhibited more general intelligence than previous AI models and showed human-level efficiency in jobs covering several domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research triggered an argument on whether GPT-4 could be considered an early, incomplete version of artificial general intelligence, emphasizing the requirement for additional exploration and examination of such systems. [111]

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

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


In May 2023, Demis Hassabis likewise said that "The progress in the last few years has been pretty incredible", and that he sees no reason that it would slow down, anticipating AGI within a years and even a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, specified his expectation that within 5 years, AI would be capable of passing any test at least in addition to human beings. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI worker, estimated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably possible". [115]

Whole brain emulation


While the advancement of transformer models like in ChatGPT is thought about the most promising path to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can act as an alternative approach. With entire brain simulation, a brain design is built by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and after that copying and simulating it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation model should be adequately faithful to the initial, so that it behaves in virtually the exact same way as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is discussed in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study functions. It has actually been discussed in expert system research [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that might deliver the essential detailed understanding are enhancing rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] predicts that a map of enough quality will appear on a comparable timescale to the computing power needed to emulate it.


Early approximates


For low-level brain simulation, a very effective cluster of computers or GPUs would be needed, given the enormous 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 neurons. The brain of a three-year-old kid 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 quote of the brain's processing power, based upon a simple switch model for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at different price quotes for the hardware needed to equal the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 computations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a "computation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a procedure used to rate present supercomputers - then 1016 "calculations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, achieved in 2011, while 1018 was achieved in 2022.) He utilized this figure to predict the essential hardware would be offered at some point in between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential growth in computer power at the time of composing continued.


Current research study


The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded effort active from 2013 to 2023, has developed an especially detailed and publicly available 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 techniques


The synthetic nerve cell design assumed by Kurzweil and used in numerous current synthetic neural network implementations is easy compared to biological nerve cells. A brain simulation would likely have to catch the in-depth cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, currently understood only in broad overview. The overhead presented by complete modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (especially on a molecular scale) would need computational powers numerous orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's price quote. In addition, the price quotes do not represent glial cells, which are known to contribute in cognitive procedures. [125]

A basic criticism of the simulated brain technique originates from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is an essential element of human intelligence and is required to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is right, any completely practical brain model will need 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 unknown whether this would suffice.


Philosophical point of view


"Strong AI" as defined in viewpoint


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

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


The very first one he called "strong" because it makes a stronger statement: it assumes something special has actually taken place to the maker that goes beyond those abilities that we can test. The behaviour of a "weak AI" device would be specifically similar to a "strong AI" machine, but the latter would likewise have subjective mindful experience. This usage is also typical in scholastic AI research and books. [129]

In contrast to Searle and traditional AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil use the term "strong AI" to indicate "human level artificial general intelligence". [102] This is not the exact same as Searle's strong AI, unless it is presumed that awareness is needed for human-level AGI. Academic philosophers such as Searle do not think that is the case, and to most expert system researchers the concern is out-of-scope. [130]

Mainstream AI is most interested in how a program behaves. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they do not care if you call it real or a simulation." [130] If the program can act as if it has a mind, then there is no need to understand if it really has mind - certainly, there would be no method to tell. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is comparable to the statement "synthetic general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for granted, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 different things.


Consciousness


Consciousness can have numerous meanings, and some aspects play considerable roles in sci-fi and the ethics of expert system:


Sentience (or "extraordinary awareness"): The ability to "feel" perceptions or feelings subjectively, rather than the capability to reason about perceptions. Some theorists, such as David Chalmers, use the term "awareness" to refer specifically to extraordinary consciousness, which is roughly comparable to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience emerges is understood as the hard problem of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel described in 1974 that it "seems like" something to be conscious. If we are not conscious, then it does not feel like anything. Nagel utilizes the example of a bat: we can smartly ask "what does it feel like to be a bat?" However, we are unlikely to ask "what does it seem like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat appears to be mindful (i.e., has awareness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually accomplished life, though this claim was widely contested by other professionals. [135]

Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a different person, specifically to be knowingly knowledgeable about one's own thoughts. This is opposed to just being the "topic of one's believed"-an operating system or debugger has the ability to be "knowledgeable about itself" (that is, to represent itself in the exact same way it represents whatever else)-but this is not what people typically suggest when they use the term "self-awareness". [g]

These characteristics have an ethical dimension. AI sentience would trigger concerns of welfare and legal protection, similarly to animals. [136] Other aspects of awareness related to cognitive abilities are likewise pertinent to the idea of AI rights. [137] Determining how to integrate sophisticated AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emerging problem. [138]

Benefits


AGI could have a wide array of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI might assist alleviate numerous problems on the planet such as hunger, hardship and health issue. [139]

AGI could enhance performance and effectiveness in most tasks. For example, in public health, AGI might speed up medical research, significantly versus cancer. [140] It could look after the senior, [141] and equalize access to quick, top quality medical diagnostics. It could provide fun, inexpensive and customized education. [141] The need to work to subsist could become outdated if the wealth produced is appropriately rearranged. [141] [142] This likewise raises the concern of the location of people in a radically automated society.


AGI could also assist to make rational choices, and to anticipate and prevent disasters. It might likewise assist to profit of potentially catastrophic technologies such as nanotechnology or environment engineering, while avoiding the associated threats. [143] If an AGI's main objective is to prevent existential disasters such as human extinction (which might be hard if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be real), [144] it might take steps to significantly reduce the dangers [143] while reducing the effect of these steps on our lifestyle.


Risks


Existential dangers


AGI might represent numerous types of existential threat, which are risks that threaten "the premature extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or the irreversible and drastic damage of its capacity for desirable future development". [145] The danger of human extinction from AGI has been the topic of lots of arguments, however there is likewise the possibility that the development of AGI would cause a completely problematic future. Notably, it could be used to spread and preserve the set of values of whoever establishes it. If humankind still has moral blind spots similar to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, preventing ethical progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI might assist in mass surveillance and indoctrination, which might be utilized to produce a steady repressive worldwide totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is likewise a risk for the devices themselves. If devices that are sentient or otherwise worthwhile of ethical consideration are mass developed in the future, taking part in a civilizational course that indefinitely ignores their welfare and interests might be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI might enhance humankind's future and assistance decrease other existential dangers, Toby Ord calls these existential threats "an argument for proceeding with due caution", not for "deserting AI". [147]

Risk of loss of control and human extinction


The thesis that AI postures an existential threat for human beings, and that this risk requires more attention, is controversial but has been endorsed in 2023 by many public figures, AI researchers and CEOs of AI business such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis and Sam Altman. [151] [152]

In 2014, Stephen Hawking slammed extensive indifference:


So, dealing with possible futures of incalculable advantages and risks, the experts are undoubtedly doing everything possible to guarantee 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 simply reply, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is more or less what is taking place with AI. [153]

The possible fate of mankind has sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The comparison states that higher intelligence allowed humanity to dominate gorillas, which are now susceptible in manner ins which they might not have expected. As a result, 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 considers that AGIs will have no desire to dominate humanity and that we should take care not to anthropomorphize them and translate their intents as we would for people. He said that people will not be "wise sufficient to create super-intelligent machines, yet unbelievably dumb to the point of providing it moronic goals with no safeguards". [155] On the other side, the principle of instrumental merging recommends that nearly whatever their objectives, intelligent agents will have reasons to try to endure and acquire more power as intermediary steps to accomplishing these goals. Which this does not need having feelings. [156]

Many scholars who are concerned about existential danger supporter for more research study into fixing the "control issue" to answer the question: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers implement to maximise the possibility that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, instead of devastating, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is made complex by the AI arms race (which might cause a race to the bottom of safety preventative measures in order to release products before competitors), [159] and making use of AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can present existential threat likewise has detractors. Skeptics generally state that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that concerns about AGI sidetrack from other problems related to existing AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for numerous individuals beyond the technology market, existing chatbots and LLMs are already perceived as though they were AGI, leading to further misconception and worry. [162]

Skeptics often charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an unreasonable belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an unreasonable belief in a supreme God. [163] Some scientists believe 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 pump up interest in their products. [164] [165]

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, in addition to other market leaders and scientists, provided a joint statement asserting that "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI need to be an international concern together with other societal-scale threats such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]

Mass unemployment


Researchers from OpenAI estimated that "80% of the U.S. workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the introduction of LLMs, while around 19% of employees may see a minimum of 50% of their tasks affected". [166] [167] They consider office employees to be the most exposed, for example mathematicians, accountants or web designers. [167] AGI could have a better autonomy, capability to make choices, to interface with other computer system tools, but likewise to control robotized bodies.


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

Everyone can take pleasure in 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 effectively lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the pattern seems to be towards the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality


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

See likewise


Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive capabilities comparable to those of the animal or human brain
AI impact
AI safety - Research area on making AI safe and beneficial
AI alignment - AI conformance to the designated goal
A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža
Artificial intelligence
Automated machine knowing - Process of automating the application of maker knowing
BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research effort announced by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre
General video game playing - Ability of artificial intelligence to play different video games
Generative expert system - AI system capable of producing content in response to triggers
Human Brain Project - Scientific research study project
Intelligence amplification - Use of infotech to enhance human intelligence (IA).
Machine principles - Moral behaviours of man-made makers.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task knowing - Solving several maker finding out jobs at the exact same time.
Neural scaling law - Statistical law in artificial intelligence.
Outline of expert system - Overview of and topical guide to artificial intelligence.
Transhumanism - Philosophical movement.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or kind of expert system.
Transfer knowing - Machine knowing method.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors.
Hardware for expert system - Hardware specifically designed and optimized for synthetic intelligence.
Weak synthetic intelligence - Form of synthetic intelligence.


Notes


^ a b See below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the academic meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the short article Chinese room.
^ AI founder John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet characterize in general what sort of computational treatments we wish to call smart. " [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 goals" and led the dismantling of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became figured out to fund only "mission-oriented direct research, rather than basic undirected research study". [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy writes "it would be a great relief to the remainder of the workers in AI if the innovators of brand-new general formalisms would express their hopes in a more safeguarded form than has actually in some cases been the case." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would approximately represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in regards to MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented.
^ As specified in a basic AI textbook: "The assertion that machines might potentially act smartly (or, possibly better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by thinkers, and the assertion that makers that do so are in fact believing (rather than imitating 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 carry out a single task.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to make sure that synthetic basic intelligence advantages all of humankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's new goal is producing artificial basic 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 jobs were determined as being active in 2020.
^ a b c "AI timelines: What do professionals in artificial intelligence expect for the future?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
^ Metz, Cade (15 May 2023). "Some Researchers Say A.I. Is Already Here, Stirring Debate in Tech Circles". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023.
^ "AI leader Geoffrey Hinton gives up Google and cautions of danger ahead". The New York City Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is hard to see how you can avoid the bad stars from using it for bad things.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early explores GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 shows triggers of AGI.
^ Butler, Octavia E. (1993 ). Parable of the Sower. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4466-7550-5. All that you touch you alter. All that you change 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 Expert System". The New York City Times. The genuine risk is not AI itself but the way we release it.
^ "Impressed by expert system? Experts state AGI is coming next, and it has 'existential' risks". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI could position existential risks to humankind.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The very first superintelligence will be the last innovation that mankind needs to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. Mitigating the danger of extinction from AI need to be a global priority.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI specialists alert of threat of termination from AI.
^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York Times. We are far from developing machines that can outthink us in general methods.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not provide an existential danger". Medium. There is no reason to fear AI as an existential risk.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the original on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil explains strong AI as "machine intelligence with the full variety 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 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 artificial superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Artificial intelligence is changing our world - it is on everyone to make sure 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 characteristics is based on the subjects covered by major AI textbooks, 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 forms the way we think: a brand-new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: The idea of proficiency". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: The principle 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 initial on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the initial on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What occurs when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ "Eugene Goostman is a genuine boy - the Turing Test states so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ "Scientists contest 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 everything from the bar test to AP Biology. Here's a list of challenging examinations both AI variations have actually passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Artificial Intelligence Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can 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 unreliable. The Winograd Schema is obsolete. Coffee is the response". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder suggested 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 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 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 initial on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
^ Simon 1965, p. 96 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109.
^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008.
^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), estimated in Crevier (1993, p. 109).
^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994.
^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment".
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22.
^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see likewise Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212.
^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). "Reply to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007.
^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). "Behind Artificial Intelligence, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York City Times. Archived from the original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer researchers and software engineers prevented the term expert system for fear of being seen as wild-eyed dreamers.
^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26
^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20
^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300.
^ Gubrud 1997
^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the initial on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ "Who created the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., 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 summertime school: June 22 - July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009". Archived from the initial on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 - 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 limitations of machine intelligence: Despite development in device intelligence, synthetic basic intelligence is still a significant obstacle". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ "Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing "Sparks" of AGI". Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023.
^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). "The Singularity Isn't Near". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Winfield, Alan. "Expert system will not develop into 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 original on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future progress in synthetic intelligence: A study of expert viewpoint. In Fundamental concerns of synthetic 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, edited by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia
^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023.
^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The creativity of 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 Expert System". Annals of Data Science. 4 (2 ): 179-191. arXiv:1709.10242. doi:10.1007/ s40745-017-0109-0. S2CID 37900130.
^ Brien, Jörn (5 October 2017). "Google-KI doppelt so schlau wie Siri" [Google AI is twice as wise 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 in between narrow and general AI". VentureBeat. Archived from the initial on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020. Certainly, too, there are those who claim we are already 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 debatable, but the agreement is that it is not AGI. ... If absolutely nothing else, GPT-3 informs us there is a happy medium between narrow and basic AI.
^ Quach, Katyanna. "A developer constructed an AI chatbot using GPT-3 that helped a man speak again to his late fiancée. OpenAI shut it down". The Register. Archived from the original on 16 October 2021. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
^ Wiggers, Kyle (13 May 2022), "DeepMind's brand-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 measure up to human intelligence in 'just a few years,' says CEO of Google's main A.I. research study laboratory". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO states 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 project maps the human brain". euractiv.
^ Swaminathan, Nikhil (January-February 2011). "Glia-the other brain cells". Discover. Archived from the original on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
^ de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser 2008. A wide variety of views in present research study, all of which need grounding to some degree
^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How publishing our minds to a computer might end up being possible". The Conversation. Retrieved 8 November 2023.
^ Searle 1980
^ For example: Russell & Norvig 2003,
Oxford University Press Dictionary of Psychology Archived 3 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine (quoted in" Encyclopedia.com"),.
MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (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 behaves the way it does.
^ Chalmers, David J. (9 August 2023). "Could a Big Language Model Be Conscious?". Boston Review.
^ Seth, Anil. "Consciousness". New Scientist. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Nagel 1974.
^ "The Google engineer who believes the business's AI has actually come to life". The Washington Post. 11 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Nosta, John (18 December 2023). "Should Expert System Have Rights?". Psychology Today. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Akst, Daniel (10 April 2023). "Should Robots With Expert System Have Moral or Legal Rights?". The Wall Street Journal.
^ "Artificial General Intelligence - Do [es] the expense outweigh advantages?". 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ "How we can Take advantage of Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) - Unite.AI". www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. "What Will Our Society Appear Like When 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, threats, methods (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom; New York City, 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 change an 'existential security threat' to Australia, Senate inquiry states". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023.
^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6.
^ a b Ord, Toby (2020 ). "Chapter 5: Future Risks, Unaligned Expert System". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9.
^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious". Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). "Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023.
^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ a b "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ "Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence takes a look at the ramifications of expert system - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'". The Independent (UK). Archived from the initial on 25 September 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2014.
^ Herger, Mario. "The Gorilla Problem - Enterprise Garage". Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ "The remarkable Facebook argument in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the dangers of strong AI". The interesting 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 disastrous AGI threat: a study". Physica Scripta. 90 (1 ): 018001. doi:10.1088/ 0031-8949/90/ 1/018001. ISSN 0031-8949.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (First ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2.
^ Chow, Andrew R.; Perrigo, Billy (16 February 2023). "The AI Arms Race Is On. Start Worrying". TIME. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Tetlow, Gemma (12 January 2017). "AI arms race risks spiralling out of control, report cautions". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). "Experts disagree over risk posed but expert system can not be neglected". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ "Humanity, Security & AI, Oh My! (with Ian Bremmer & Shuman Ghosemajumder)". CAFE. 20 July 2023. Retrieved 15 September 2023.
^ Hamblin, James (9 May 2014). "But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me?". The Atlantic. Archived from the initial on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
^ Titcomb, James (30 October 2023). "Big Tech is stoking worries over AI, warn scientists". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain founder says huge tech is lying about AI extinction threat". 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 take a look at the labor market impact capacity of big language designs". OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). "OpenAI states 80% of employees could see their jobs impacted by AI. These are the jobs most affected". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk states we require universal fundamental earnings since 'in the future, manual labor will be a choice'". 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 original on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021.
Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press.
Clocksin, William (August 2003), "Expert system and the future", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007.
Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous Look For Expert System. New York City, NY: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-02997-3.
Darrach, Brad (20 November 1970), "Meet Shakey, the First Electronic Person", Life Magazine, pp. 58-68.
Drachman, D. (2005 ), "Do we have brain to spare?", Neurology, 64 (12 ): 2004-2005, doi:10.1212/ 01. WNL.0000166914.38327. BB, PMID 15985565, S2CID 38482114.
Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983 ), The Fifth Generation: 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 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 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 original 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, obtained 7 May 2011.
Howe, J. (November 1994), Expert System at Edinburgh University: a Viewpoint, archived from the original on 17 August 2007, recovered 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 seminar, 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 ultimate effort is to make computer programs that can solve problems and attain objectives worldwide as well as human beings.
Moravec, Hans (1988 ), Mind Children, Harvard University Press
Moravec, Hans (1998 ), "When will hardware match the human brain?", Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 1, archived from the original on 15 June 2006, retrieved 23 June 2006
Nagel (1974 ), "What Is it Like to Be a Bat" (PDF), Philosophical Review, 83 (4 ): 435-50, doi:10.2307/ 2183914, JSTOR 2183914, archived (PDF) from the 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 ), Expert System: 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 original on 12 January 2008, recovered 29 September 2007
Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Logical Approach, New York City: Oxford University Press, archived from the initial on 25 July 2009, retrieved 6 December 2007
Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003 ), Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-790395-2
Sandberg, Anders; Boström, Nick (2008 ), Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap (PDF), Technical Report # 2008-3, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University, archived (PDF) from the initial on 25 March 2020, 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 significance and cognition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-1992-1727-4
Wang, Pei; Goertzel, Ben (2007 ). "Introduction: Aspects of Artificial General Intelligence". Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms: Proceedings of the AGI Workshop 2006. IOS Press. pp. 1-16. ISBN 978-1-5860-3758-1. Archived from the original on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 - via ResearchGate.


Further reading


Aleksander, Igor (1996 ), Impossible Minds, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 978-1-8609-4036-1
Azevedo FA, Carvalho LR, Grinberg LT, Farfel J, et al. (April 2009), "Equal varieties of neuronal and nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled-up primate brain", The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 513 (5 ): 532-541, doi:10.1002/ cne.21974, PMID 19226510, S2CID 5200449, archived from the original on 18 February 2021, recovered 4 September 2013 - through ResearchGate
Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Expert System Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the initial on 23 July 2014, retrieved 31 August 2012
Cukier, Kenneth, "Ready for Robots? How to Consider the Future of AI", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 4 (July/August 2019), pp. 192-98. George Dyson, historian of computing, writes (in what may be called "Dyson's Law") that "Any system easy adequate to be easy to understand will not be complicated enough to behave smartly, while any system complicated enough to act intelligently will be too made complex to understand." (p. 197.) Computer scientist Alex Pentland writes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead easy silly. They work, but they work by strength." (p. 198.).
Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the initial on 26 July 2010, retrieved 25 July 2010.
Gleick, James, "The Fate of Free Choice" (review 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, factor and purpose 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 City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. "' We can't realistically expect that those who intend to get abundant from AI are going to have the interests of the rest people close at heart,' ... writes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't depend on governments driven by project financing contributions [from tech companies] to push back.' ... Marcus information the demands that citizens must make of their governments and the tech business. They include transparency on how AI systems work; settlement for people if their data [are] used to train LLMs (large language design) s and the right to grant this usage; and the ability to hold tech business responsible for the harms they trigger by removing Section 230, enforcing money penalites, and passing more stringent item liability laws ... Marcus also suggests ... that a new, AI-specific federal firm, similar to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, may supply the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law teacher Chinmayi Sharma ... recommends ... develop [ing] an expert licensing regime for engineers that would operate in a similar method to medical licenses, malpractice matches, and the Hippocratic oath in medication. 'What if, like physicians,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers likewise promised to do no harm?'" (p. 46.).
Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), "Abstraction and reformulation in synthetic intelligence", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 358, no. 1435, pp. 1197-1204, doi:10.1098/ rstb.2003.1317, PMC 1693218, PMID 12903653.
Hughes-Castleberry, Kenna, "A Murder Mystery Puzzle: The literary puzzle Cain's Jawbone, which has stumped human beings for years, reveals the constraints of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder mystery competition has exposed that although NLP (natural-language processing) designs can incredible tasks, their abilities are very much limited by the quantity of context they receive. This [...] might trigger [troubles] for researchers who want to utilize them to do things such as analyze ancient languages. In some cases, there are few historical records on long-gone civilizations to act as training data for such a purpose." (p. 82.).
Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: People now use A.I. to generate phony videos indistinguishable from real ones. Just how much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we imply reasonable videos produced utilizing synthetic intelligence that in fact trick individuals, then they hardly exist. The fakes aren't deep, and the deeps aren't fake. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in basic, operating in our media as counterfeited proof. Their function better looks like that of animations, particularly smutty ones." (p. 59.).
- Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We should avoid humanizing machine-learning designs used in scientific research", Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81.
Lepore, Jill, "The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a machine a discussion?", The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16.
Marcus, Gary, "Artificial Confidence: Even the newest, asteroidsathome.net buzziest systems of artificial general intelligence are stymmied by the usual problems", Scientific American, vol. 327, no. 4 (October 2022), pp. 42-45.
McCarthy, John (October 2007), "From here to human-level AI", Expert System, 171 (18 ): 1174-1182, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.009.
McCorduck, Pamela (2004 ), Machines Who Think (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 initial on 3 March 2016, retrieved 29 September 2007.
Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1963 ), "GPS: A Program that Simulates Human Thought", in Feigenbaum, E. A.; Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Omohundro, Steve (2008 ), The Nature of Self-Improving Expert system, presented and distributed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California.
Press, Eyal, "In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition technology lead police to overlook inconsistent proof?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26.
Roivainen, Eka, "AI's IQ: ChatGPT aced a [basic intelligence] test but showed that intelligence can not be measured by IQ alone", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 1 (July/August 2023), p. 7. "Despite its high IQ, ChatGPT fails at jobs that need genuine humanlike thinking or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT seemed not able to factor realistically and tried to rely 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 however unreliable. 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 currently led to catastrophe. Advanced autopilot features in automobiles, although they carry out well in some circumstances, have actually driven cars and trucks without warning into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked cars. In the wrong scenario, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an immediate. When an enemy is attempting to manipulate 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 enabled by brand-new technologies however depend on the timelelss human tendency to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.).
Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.