Artificial General Intelligence

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of expert system (AI) that matches or exceeds human cognitive abilities throughout a vast array of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to specific jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that considerably exceeds human cognitive capabilities. AGI is thought about among the meanings of strong AI.


Creating AGI is a primary objective of AI research and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 study identified 72 active AGI research study and advancement tasks throughout 37 nations. [4]

The timeline for attaining AGI remains a topic of ongoing debate among scientists and professionals. Since 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or years; others maintain it might take a century or longer; a minority believe it may never ever be attained; and another minority claims that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has actually revealed issues about the quick progress towards AGI, recommending it might be attained earlier than many expect. [7]

There is argument on the specific meaning of AGI and relating to whether contemporary big language designs (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early forms of AGI. [8] AGI is a typical subject in sci-fi and futures studies. [9] [10]

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential threat. [11] [12] [13] Many specialists on AI have actually mentioned that alleviating the risk of human extinction postured by AGI ought to be a global concern. [14] [15] Others find the advancement of AGI to be too remote to present such a risk. [16] [17]

Terminology


AGI is likewise called strong AI, [18] [19] complete AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level smart AI, or basic smart action. [21]

Some scholastic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience life or consciousness. [a] In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) has the ability to resolve one particular issue however does not have basic cognitive abilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness nor have a mind in the exact same sense as human beings. [a]

Related principles include synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical type of AGI that is a lot more typically intelligent than humans, [23] while the idea of transformative AI associates with AI having a big effect on society, for example, comparable to the farming or commercial transformation. [24]

A framework for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They define five levels of AGI: emerging, competent, specialist, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a qualified AGI is defined as an AI that surpasses 50% of proficient grownups in a large range of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is likewise defined but with a limit of 100%. They think about large language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics


Various popular meanings 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 approaches. [b]

Intelligence traits


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

factor, use method, fix puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty
represent understanding, including typical sense knowledge
strategy
discover
- communicate in natural language
- if needed, integrate these abilities in completion of any given goal


Many interdisciplinary methods (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) consider additional traits such as creativity (the capability to form unique mental images and ideas) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that display much of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated thinking, decision assistance system, robotic, evolutionary calculation, smart representative). There is debate about whether modern-day AI systems possess them to an appropriate degree.


Physical characteristics


Other abilities are considered preferable in smart systems, as they may impact intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: [30]

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


This includes the ability to find and react to danger. [31]

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the capability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate objects, modification location to check out, and so on) can be desirable for some smart systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly needed for an entity to certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that large language models (LLMs) might currently be or end up being AGI. Even from a less positive viewpoint on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like form; being a silicon-based computational system is sufficient, supplied it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This analysis aligns with the understanding that AGI has never been proscribed a specific physical embodiment and hence does not require a capacity for locomotion or traditional "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI


Several tests implied to validate human-level AGI have been thought about, including: [33] [34]

The idea of the test is that the device needs to attempt and pretend to be a male, by addressing concerns put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is reasonably persuading. A significant part of a jury, who need to not be skilled about makers, need to be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete problems


An issue is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is thought that in order to fix it, one would require to carry out AGI, due to the fact that the solution is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]

There are many issues that have actually been conjectured to require general intelligence to fix in addition to people. Examples consist of computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unforeseen circumstances while solving any real-world problem. [48] Even a particular task like translation needs a maker to check out and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (reason), comprehend the context (knowledge), and faithfully recreate the author's initial intent (social intelligence). All of these issues require to be resolved concurrently in order to reach human-level device efficiency.


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

History


Classical AI


Modern AI research study began in the mid-1950s. [50] The first generation of AI researchers were persuaded that artificial general intelligence was possible which it would exist in simply a few decades. [51] AI leader Herbert A. Simon composed in 1965: "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do." [52]

Their forecasts were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers believed they might produce by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a consultant [53] on the job of making HAL 9000 as reasonable as possible according to the consensus forecasts of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation ... the issue of developing 'artificial intelligence' will considerably be fixed". [54]

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


However, in the early 1970s, it became obvious that scientists had grossly undervalued the trouble of the job. Funding firms became hesitant of AGI and put scientists under increasing pressure to produce useful "applied AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project restored interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that included AGI goals like "continue a table talk". [58] In reaction to this and the success of specialist systems, both market and federal government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI stunningly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never fulfilled. [60] For the second time in twenty years, AI researchers who forecasted the imminent achievement of AGI had been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a track record for making vain promises. They became reluctant to make forecasts at all [d] and prevented reference of "human level" artificial intelligence for worry of being identified "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research study


In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI accomplished business success and academic respectability by concentrating on specific sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable results and commercial applications, such as speech recognition and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now utilized thoroughly throughout the innovation market, and research in this vein is heavily funded in both academia and market. As of 2018 [update], advancement in this field was thought about an emerging trend, and a fully grown stage was anticipated to be reached in more than ten years. [64]

At the turn of the century, numerous mainstream AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI might be developed by integrating programs that resolve various sub-problems. Hans Moravec composed in 1988:


I am positive that this bottom-up path to synthetic intelligence will one day fulfill the conventional top-down path majority way, prepared to supply the real-world skills and the commonsense knowledge that has actually been so frustratingly evasive in thinking programs. Fully intelligent devices will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven joining the two efforts. [65]

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


The expectation has actually frequently been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way fulfill "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 just one feasible route from sense to signs: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software level of a computer will never be reached by this path (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we must even attempt to reach such a level, since it appears arriving would simply total up to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic significances (thus merely reducing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer system). [66]

Modern artificial general intelligence research study


The term "artificial general intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation of the implications of completely automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI agent increases "the ability to please goals in a vast array 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 promoted by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research study activity in 2006 was explained by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and preliminary outcomes". The first summertime 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, organized by Lex Fridman and featuring a variety of visitor speakers.


Since 2023 [upgrade], a little number of computer system researchers are active in AGI research study, and lots of add to a series of AGI conferences. However, progressively more scientists have an interest in open-ended knowing, [76] [77] which is the concept of enabling AI to constantly discover and innovate like people do.


Feasibility


As of 2023, the development and potential achievement of AGI stays a subject of extreme dispute within the AI neighborhood. While standard agreement held that AGI was a far-off goal, recent advancements have led some researchers and market figures to claim that early forms of AGI might currently exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do". This prediction failed to come true. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century due to the fact that it would require "unforeseeable and fundamentally unforeseeable breakthroughs" and a "clinically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield claimed the gulf in between modern-day computing and human-level expert system is as large as the gulf in between existing area flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A further difficulty is the absence of clarity in specifying what intelligence entails. Does it require consciousness? Must it display the capability to set objectives along with pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if model sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are facilities such as preparation, reasoning, and causal understanding needed? Does intelligence need explicitly duplicating the brain and its specific faculties? Does it need emotions? [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 accomplishing strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who believe human-level AI will be accomplished, but that the present level of development is such that a date can not accurately be predicted. [84] AI experts' views on the expediency of AGI wax and wane. Four polls conducted in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the median price quote amongst experts for when they would be 50% positive AGI would show up was 2040 to 2050, depending on the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the professionals, 16.5% responded to with "never ever" when asked the very same concern but with a 90% confidence rather. [85] [86] Further existing AGI development factors to consider can be found above Tests for confirming human-level AGI.


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

In 2023, Microsoft researchers published an in-depth examination of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, our company believe that it could reasonably be seen as an early (yet still incomplete) 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 imaginative thinking. [89] [90]

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig wrote in 2023 that a substantial level of general intelligence has actually currently been achieved with frontier designs. They wrote that hesitation to this view originates from four main factors: a "healthy uncertainty about metrics for AGI", an "ideological commitment to alternative AI theories or methods", a "dedication to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "concern about the financial implications of AGI". [91]

2023 likewise marked the introduction of large multimodal designs (large language models capable of processing or generating numerous techniques such as text, audio, and images). [92]

In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the very first of a series of designs that "invest more time thinking before they react". According to Mira Murati, this ability to believe before reacting represents a brand-new, extra paradigm. It improves model outputs by investing more computing power when producing the response, whereas the design scaling paradigm improves outputs by increasing the model size, training information and training calculate power. [93] [94]

An OpenAI employee, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the business had actually accomplished AGI, mentioning, "In my viewpoint, 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 many jobs." He likewise resolved criticisms that big language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their learning procedure to the scientific technique of observing, hypothesizing, and validating. These declarations have triggered dispute, as they depend on a broad and unconventional definition of AGI-traditionally understood as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's designs show remarkable adaptability, they might not totally satisfy this standard. Notably, Kazemi's remarks came shortly after OpenAI eliminated "AGI" from the regards to its partnership with Microsoft, triggering speculation about the business's strategic intentions. [95]

Timescales


Progress in expert system has actually traditionally gone through periods of rapid development separated by periods when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were basic advances in hardware, software application or both to create area for further progress. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the hardware readily available in the twentieth century was not sufficient to implement deep learning, which requires big numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the intro to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel says that price quotes of the time required before a genuinely versatile AGI is constructed differ from 10 years to over a century. Since 2007 [update], the consensus in the AGI research community seemed to be that the timeline discussed 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 offered a vast array of opinions on whether development will be this quick. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions discovered a predisposition towards predicting that the beginning of AGI would occur within 16-26 years for modern and historic predictions alike. That paper has been criticized for how it categorized viewpoints as specialist or non-expert. [104]

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

In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu conducted intelligence tests on openly offered and easily available weak AI such as Google AI, Apple's Siri, and others. At the optimum, these AIs reached an IQ worth of about 47, which corresponds roughly to a six-year-old child in first grade. An adult comes to about 100 typically. Similar tests were performed in 2014, with the IQ score reaching a maximum worth of 27. [106] [107]

In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language model capable of performing many varied tasks without specific training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat article, while there is agreement that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is considered by some to be too advanced to be categorized as a narrow AI system. [108]

In the same year, Jason Rohrer used his GPT-3 account to establish a chatbot, and provided a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested for modifications to the chatbot to abide by their safety standards; Rohrer disconnected Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

In 2022, DeepMind established Gato, a "general-purpose" system efficient in carrying out more than 600 different jobs. [110]

In 2023, Microsoft Research released a study on an early variation of OpenAI's GPT-4, competing that it showed more general intelligence than previous AI models and demonstrated human-level performance in jobs spanning numerous domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research triggered a dispute on whether GPT-4 could be considered an early, incomplete version of synthetic general intelligence, emphasizing the requirement for further expedition and examination of such systems. [111]

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

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


In May 2023, Demis Hassabis likewise stated that "The development in the last couple of years has actually been pretty amazing", which he sees no factor why it would slow down, expecting 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 can passing any test at least in addition to humans. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI employee, estimated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably possible". [115]

Whole brain emulation


While the development of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is considered the most appealing course to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can act as an alternative approach. With entire brain simulation, a brain design is developed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and then copying and simulating it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation design should be sufficiently devoted to the original, so that it behaves in virtually the same way as the initial brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is gone over in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study functions. It has been talked about in artificial intelligence research [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that could provide the essential in-depth understanding are enhancing quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] forecasts that a map of enough quality will become available on a comparable timescale to the computing power needed to replicate it.


Early estimates


For low-level brain simulation, an extremely effective cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be needed, offered 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 neurons. The brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A price quote of the brain's processing power, based on an easy switch design for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at numerous estimates for the hardware required to equate to the human brain and adopted a figure of 1016 computations per second (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "calculation" was equivalent to one "floating-point operation" - a measure used to rate current supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He utilized this figure to anticipate the required hardware would be available at some point between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential development in computer 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 developed an especially 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 approaches


The artificial nerve cell model assumed by Kurzweil and utilized in lots of present synthetic neural network implementations is simple compared to biological nerve cells. A brain simulation would likely need to capture the in-depth cellular behaviour of biological neurons, presently comprehended just in broad overview. The overhead presented by complete modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical details of neural behaviour (especially on a molecular scale) would need computational powers numerous orders of magnitude bigger than Kurzweil's quote. In addition, the estimates do not account for glial cells, which are known to play a role in cognitive processes. [125]

An essential criticism of the simulated brain technique derives from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is a necessary aspect of human intelligence and is essential to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is correct, any fully functional brain model will require to include more than simply the neurons (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as a choice, but it is unidentified whether this would be enough.


Philosophical viewpoint


"Strong AI" as defined in viewpoint


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

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


The first one he called "strong" because it makes a stronger statement: it assumes something special has actually taken place to the machine that exceeds those capabilities that we can test. The behaviour of a "weak AI" machine would be precisely similar to a "strong AI" maker, however the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This use is likewise common 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 mean "human level artificial general intelligence". [102] This is not the like Searle's strong AI, unless it is presumed that consciousness is essential for human-level AGI. Academic philosophers such as Searle do not think 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 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 know if it in fact has mind - certainly, there would be no chance to tell. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is comparable to the declaration "artificial 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, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are two various things.


Consciousness


Consciousness can have numerous significances, and some elements play substantial roles in sci-fi and the ethics of expert system:


Sentience (or "phenomenal awareness"): The capability to "feel" understandings or emotions subjectively, rather than the ability to reason about perceptions. Some philosophers, such as David Chalmers, use the term "awareness" to refer specifically to phenomenal awareness, which is approximately equivalent to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience arises is known as the difficult problem of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel discussed in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be mindful. If we are not mindful, then it does not seem like anything. Nagel uses the example of a bat: we can smartly ask "what does it seem like to be a bat?" However, we are unlikely to ask "what does it feel like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat seems conscious (i.e., has consciousness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the company's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually achieved sentience, though this claim was commonly challenged by other specialists. [135]

Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a different individual, specifically to be consciously familiar with one's own ideas. This is opposed to just being the "subject of one's believed"-an operating system or debugger is able to be "knowledgeable about itself" (that is, to represent itself in the very same way it represents whatever else)-however this is not what individuals typically indicate when they use the term "self-awareness". [g]

These traits have a moral measurement. AI sentience would trigger issues of well-being and legal defense, similarly to animals. [136] Other elements of consciousness associated to cognitive abilities are likewise pertinent to the principle of AI rights. [137] Determining how to integrate sophisticated AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emergent concern. [138]

Benefits


AGI could have a wide variety of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI might assist alleviate numerous issues in the world such as cravings, hardship and health issues. [139]

AGI might enhance efficiency and effectiveness in many jobs. For example, in public health, AGI might accelerate medical research, notably against cancer. [140] It might look after the senior, [141] and equalize access to fast, high-quality medical diagnostics. It might use enjoyable, low-cost and personalized education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist could become obsolete if the wealth produced is properly redistributed. [141] [142] This also raises the concern of the location of human beings in a significantly automated society.


AGI could likewise help to make reasonable choices, and to expect and avoid catastrophes. It might likewise assist to gain the benefits of potentially disastrous innovations such as nanotechnology or environment engineering, while preventing the associated dangers. [143] If an AGI's main objective is to prevent existential catastrophes such as human termination (which could be tough if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be real), [144] it could take measures to drastically decrease the threats [143] while minimizing the effect of these measures on our lifestyle.


Risks


Existential dangers


AGI might represent multiple kinds of existential threat, which are threats that threaten "the premature termination of Earth-originating smart life or the long-term and extreme damage of its capacity for desirable future development". [145] The threat of human extinction from AGI has actually been the topic of lots of disputes, however there is also the possibility that the development of AGI would lead to a permanently flawed future. Notably, it might be used to spread out and protect the set of worths of whoever establishes it. If humanity still has moral blind areas comparable to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, avoiding moral progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI could facilitate mass monitoring and brainwashing, which might be used to produce a steady repressive around the world totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is likewise a threat for the devices themselves. If machines that are sentient or otherwise worthy of ethical factor to consider are mass developed in the future, engaging in a civilizational course that forever ignores their welfare and interests might be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI might improve humanity's future and help in reducing other existential threats, Toby Ord calls these existential risks "an argument for continuing with due caution", not for "deserting AI". [147]

Risk of loss of control and human extinction


The thesis that AI postures an existential risk for people, which this risk needs 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 criticized prevalent indifference:


So, facing possible futures of enormous advantages and risks, the experts are certainly doing whatever possible to ensure the finest outcome, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message saying, '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 more or less what is happening with AI. [153]

The prospective fate of humanity has actually sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The comparison specifies that greater intelligence enabled humanity to control gorillas, which are now susceptible in manner ins which they might not have actually anticipated. As a result, the gorilla has become a threatened types, not out of malice, but just as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to control humanity and that we should be careful not to anthropomorphize them and interpret their intents as we would for humans. He stated that individuals won't be "clever sufficient to create super-intelligent machines, yet ridiculously dumb to the point of providing it moronic objectives without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the principle of instrumental merging suggests that practically whatever their objectives, intelligent agents will have reasons to attempt to endure and get more power as intermediary steps to achieving these objectives. And that this does not require having emotions. [156]

Many scholars who are worried about existential danger advocate for more research into solving the "control issue" to respond to the question: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers carry out to increase the likelihood that their recursively-improving AI would continue to act in a friendly, instead of destructive, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is complicated by the AI arms race (which could lead to a race to the bottom of safety precautions in order to launch items before rivals), [159] and using AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can pose existential danger likewise has critics. Skeptics typically say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that concerns about AGI distract from other issues related to current AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder considers that for numerous individuals beyond the technology market, existing chatbots and LLMs are currently viewed as though they were AGI, leading to further misconception and fear. [162]

Skeptics often charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an unreasonable belief in the possibility of superintelligence changing an illogical belief in an omnipotent God. [163] Some researchers believe that the interaction campaigns on AI existential threat by certain AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) may be an at effort at regulative capture and to pump up interest in their items. [164] [165]

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, together with other market leaders and scientists, provided a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the threat of termination from AI need to be a global priority alongside other societal-scale dangers such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]

Mass joblessness


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


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

Everyone can delight in a life of elegant leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or many people can wind up miserably bad if the machine-owners successfully lobby versus wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be towards the second option, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality


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

See also


Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities comparable to those of the animal or human brain
AI result
AI security - Research location on making AI safe and useful
AI alignment - AI conformance to the desired objective
A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža
Expert system
Automated machine learning - Process of automating the application of maker knowing
BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research study initiative announced by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre
General video game playing - Ability of expert system to play different games
Generative artificial intelligence - AI system capable of producing material in reaction to prompts
Human Brain Project - Scientific research study job
Intelligence amplification - Use of information innovation to augment human intelligence (IA).
Machine ethics - Moral behaviours of man-made devices.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task learning - Solving numerous maker learning tasks at the very 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 type of expert system.
Transfer knowing - Machine learning method.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors.
Hardware for expert system - Hardware specifically created and enhanced for expert system.
Weak expert system - Form of artificial intelligence.


Notes


^ a b See listed below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the academic definition of "strong AI" and weak AI in the article Chinese room.
^ AI founder John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet define in basic what type of computational procedures we wish to call intelligent. " [26] (For a conversation of some definitions of intelligence used by artificial intelligence scientists, see viewpoint of expert system.).
^ The Lighthill report particularly criticized AI's "grandiose goals" and led the taking apart of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA ended up being figured out to money just "mission-oriented direct research, rather than standard undirected research". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy composes "it would be a great relief to the rest of the workers in AI if the inventors of brand-new basic formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more safeguarded form than has actually in some cases held true." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More just recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would approximately correspond to 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil introduced.
^ As specified in a basic AI textbook: "The assertion that devices could possibly act intelligently (or, maybe better, act as if they were smart) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by thinkers, and the assertion that machines that do so are in fact believing (rather than replicating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References


^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is artificial narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is designed to carry out a single job.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our objective is to make sure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's brand-new objective is producing artificial general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to build AI that is much better than human-level at all of the human senses.
^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Study of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D projects were identified as being active in 2020.
^ a b c "AI timelines: What do professionals in expert system anticipate for the future?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
^ Metz, Cade (15 May 2023). "Some Researchers Say A.I. Is Already Here, Stirring Debate in Tech Circles". The New York City Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023.
^ "AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton stops Google and warns of threat ahead". The New York Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is tough to see how you can avoid the bad actors from using it for bad things.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 shows triggers of AGI.
^ Butler, Octavia E. (1993 ). Parable of the Sower. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4466-7550-5. All that you touch you change. All that you change modifications you.
^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming.
^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Intelligence". The New York City Times. The genuine threat is not AI itself however the method we deploy it.
^ "Impressed by artificial intelligence? Experts state AGI is coming next, and it has 'existential' dangers". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might present existential dangers to humanity.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The first superintelligence will be the last invention that mankind requires to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. Mitigating the danger of termination from AI need to be an international top priority.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts warn of risk of extinction from AI.
^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York Times. We are far from developing devices that can outthink us in general methods.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not provide an existential threat". 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 initial on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil describes strong AI as "device intelligence with the full variety of human intelligence.".
^ "The Age of Expert System: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the initial on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they use for "human-level" intelligence in the physical sign system hypothesis.
^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the original on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
^ "What is synthetic superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Expert system is transforming our world - it is on everybody 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 accomplishing AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat.
^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of smart qualities is based on the subjects covered by significant AI textbooks, consisting of: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998.
^ Johnson 1987.
^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York City: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body shapes the method we think: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: The principle of proficiency". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: The idea of proficiency". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the original on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the original on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What occurs when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ "Eugene Goostman is a genuine young boy - the Turing Test states so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ "Scientists dispute 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 distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC]
^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI designs like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing everything from the bar test to AP Biology. Here's a list of tough exams both AI variations have actually passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Expert System Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Take Advantage Of It". Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is undependable. The Winograd Schema is outdated. Coffee is the answer". 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 Expert System (Second ed.). New York: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".).
^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Defining Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Expert System, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the initial 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 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 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 also Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212.
^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). "Reply to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007.
^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). "Behind Expert system, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York City Times. Archived from the original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system researchers and software engineers prevented the term expert system for fear of being considered as wild-eyed dreamers.
^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26
^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the 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 Technology an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the original on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ "Who created the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., through Life 3.0: 'The term "AGI" was promoted by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel'
^ Wang & Goertzel 2007
^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summer school: June 22 - July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009". Archived from the initial on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 - зимен триместър" [Elective courses 2010/2011 - winter trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limitations of device intelligence: Despite development in maker intelligence, synthetic general intelligence is still a significant difficulty". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ "Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing "Sparks" of AGI". Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023.
^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). "The Singularity Isn't Near". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Winfield, Alan. "Artificial intelligence will not become a Frankenstein's beast". The Guardian. Archived from the initial on 17 September 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Deane, George (2022 ). "Machines That Feel and Think: The Role of Affective Feelings and Mental Action in (Artificial) General Intelligence". Artificial Life. 28 (3 ): 289-309. doi:10.1162/ artl_a_00368. ISSN 1064-5462. PMID 35881678. S2CID 251069071.
^ a b c Clocksin 2003.
^ Fjelland, Ragnar (17 June 2020). "Why basic synthetic intelligence will not be recognized". 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 destruction?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future development in expert system: A survey of skilled opinion. In Fundamental concerns 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 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 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 artificial 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 initial 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 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 getting in the AI twilight zone in between narrow and basic AI". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020. Certainly, too, there are those who declare we are currently seeing an early example of an AGI system in the recently revealed GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. ... So is GPT-3 the very first example of an AGI system? This is arguable, but the agreement is that it is not AGI. ... If absolutely nothing else, GPT-3 informs us there is a happy medium in between narrow and basic AI.
^ Quach, Katyanna. "A developer developed an AI chatbot using GPT-3 that assisted 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 games to controlling robotics", TechCrunch, archived from the original on 16 June 2022, recovered 12 June 2022.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (22 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early 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 Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ Bove, Tristan. "A.I. might measure up to human intelligence in 'just a couple of years,' says CEO of Google's main A.I. research laboratory". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO states AI could pass human tests in 5 years". Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead".
^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). "Why everybody seems to disagree on how to define 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 original on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
^ de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser 2008. A wide variety of views in present research, all of which need 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 (estimated in" Encyclopedia.com"),.
MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (estimated in "AITopics"),.
Will Biological Computers Enable Artificially Intelligent Machines to Become Persons? Archived 13 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Anthony Tongen.




^ a b c Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 947.
^ though see Explainable synthetic intelligence for interest by the field about why a program behaves the method it does.
^ Chalmers, David J. (9 August 2023). "Could a Large Language Model Be Conscious?". Boston Review.
^ Seth, Anil. "Consciousness". New Scientist. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Nagel 1974.
^ "The Google engineer who believes the business's AI has actually come to life". The Washington Post. 11 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Nosta, John (18 December 2023). "Should Artificial Intelligence Have Rights?". Psychology Today. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Akst, Daniel (10 April 2023). "Should Robots With Artificial Intelligence Have Moral or Legal Rights?". The Wall Street Journal.
^ "Artificial General Intelligence - Do [es] the expense exceed advantages?". 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ "How we can Gain from Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) - Unite.AI". www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. "What Will Our Society Appear Like When Artificial Intelligence Is Everywhere?". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Stevenson, Matt (8 October 2015). "Answers to Stephen Hawking's AMA are Here!". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ a b Bostrom, Nick (2017 ). " § Preferred order of arrival". Superintelligence: paths, risks, techniques (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom; New York City, 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 humans will destroy ourselves". Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). "Climate alter an 'existential security danger' 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 Artificial Intelligence". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9.
^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious". Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). "Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023.
^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ a b "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ "Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of 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 fascinating Facebook dispute between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI". The interesting Facebook debate 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 Human Race Within The Next 100 Years?". HuffPost. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sotala, Kaj; Yampolskiy, Roman V. (19 December 2014). "Responses to 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 dangers spiralling out of control, report warns". Financial Times. Archived from the initial on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). "Experts disagree over risk positioned however artificial intelligence 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 original on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
^ Titcomb, James (30 October 2023). "Big Tech is stiring worries over AI, caution scientists". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain founder states huge tech is lying about AI extinction danger". 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 effect potential of big language models". OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). "OpenAI says 80% of workers might see their jobs affected by AI. These are the jobs most affected". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk says we need universal fundamental earnings since 'in the future, manual labor will be an option'". Business Insider. Archived from the initial on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
Sources


UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the initial on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021.
Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press.
Clocksin, William (August 2003), "Expert system and the future", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007.
Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous Search for Expert System. New York City, NY: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-02997-3.
Darrach, Brad (20 November 1970), "Meet Shakey, the First Electronic Person", Life Magazine, pp. 58-68.
Drachman, D. (2005 ), "Do we have brain to spare?", Neurology, 64 (12 ): 2004-2005, doi:10.1212/ 01. WNL.0000166914.38327. BB, PMID 15985565, S2CID 38482114.
Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983 ), The Fifth Generation: Artificial Intelligence and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World, Michael Joseph, ISBN 978-0-7181-2401-4.
Goertzel, Ben; Pennachin, Cassio, eds. (2006 ), Artificial General Intelligence (PDF), Springer, ISBN 978-3-5402-3733-4, archived from the initial (PDF) on 20 March 2013.
Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), "Human-level artificial basic intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a response to Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott's critique of Kurzweil", Artificial Intelligence, vol. 171, no. 18, Special Review Issue, pp. 1161-1173, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.011, archived from the initial on 7 January 2016, retrieved 1 April 2009.
Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), "Nanotechnology and International Security", Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the original on 29 May 2011, retrieved 7 May 2011.
Howe, J. (November 1994), Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University: a Point of view, archived from the initial on 17 August 2007, obtained 30 August 2007.
Johnson, Mark (1987 ), The body in the mind, Chicago, ISBN 978-0-2264-0317-5.
Kurzweil, Ray (2005 ), The Singularity is Near, Viking Press.
Lighthill, Professor Sir James (1973 ), "Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey", Expert System: a paper symposium, Science Research Council.
Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Artificial Intelligence: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving (fifth ed.), The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., p. 720, ISBN 978-0-8053-4780-7.
McCarthy, John (2007b). What is Artificial Intelligence?. Stanford University. The supreme effort is to make computer system programs that can solve issues and achieve objectives on the planet along with humans.
Moravec, Hans (1988 ), Mind Children, Harvard University Press
Moravec, Hans (1998 ), "When will computer hardware match the human brain?", Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 1, archived from the initial on 15 June 2006, retrieved 23 June 2006
Nagel (1974 ), "What Is it Like to Be a Bat" (PDF), Philosophical Review, 83 (4 ): 435-50, doi:10.2307/ 2183914, JSTOR 2183914, archived (PDF) from the initial on 16 October 2011, 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 Transformation: 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: Oxford University Press, archived from the initial on 25 July 2009, obtained 6 December 2007
Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003 ), Expert System: A Modern Approach (second ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-790395-2
Sandberg, Anders; Boström, Nick (2008 ), Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap (PDF), Technical Report # 2008-3, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University, archived (PDF) from the initial on 25 March 2020, obtained 5 April 2009
Searle, John (1980 ), "Minds, Brains and Programs" (PDF), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (3 ): 417-457, doi:10.1017/ S0140525X00005756, S2CID 55303721, archived (PDF) from the original 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 original on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 - through ResearchGate.


Further reading


Aleksander, Igor (1996 ), Impossible Minds, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 978-1-8609-4036-1
Azevedo FA, Carvalho LR, Grinberg LT, Farfel J, et al. (April 2009), "Equal 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, obtained 4 September 2013 - through ResearchGate
Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Artificial Intelligence Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the initial on 23 July 2014, recovered 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, writes (in what may be called "Dyson's Law") that "Any system basic adequate to be reasonable will not be made complex enough to behave smartly, while any system made complex enough to behave wisely will be too complicated to comprehend." (p. 197.) Computer scientist Alex Pentland writes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead basic foolish. They work, however they work by brute force." (p. 198.).
Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the initial on 26 July 2010, recovered 25 July 2010.
Gleick, James, "The Fate of Free Choice" (evaluation of Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will, Princeton University Press, 2023, 333 pp.), The New York City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. "Agency is what identifies us from machines. For biological animals, reason and purpose originate from acting worldwide and experiencing the repercussions. Expert systems - 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: Residing In the Shadow of AI, Henry Holt, 311 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. "' We can't realistically anticipate that those who want to get abundant from AI are going to have the interests of the rest of us close at heart,' ... writes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't rely on governments driven by project finance contributions [from tech companies] to push back.' ... Marcus information the needs that residents should make from their federal governments and the tech business. They include openness on how AI systems work; settlement for people if their information [are] utilized to train LLMs (large language model) s and the right to grant this usage; and the ability to hold tech business accountable for the harms they trigger by getting rid of Section 230, enforcing cash penalites, and passing stricter product liability laws ... Marcus also recommends ... that a brand-new, AI-specific federal company, similar to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, might provide the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law teacher Chinmayi Sharma ... recommends ... establish [ing] an expert licensing program for engineers that would work in a similar method to medical licenses, malpractice fits, and the Hippocratic oath in medicine. 'What if, like physicians,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers also swore to do no harm?'" (p. 46.).
Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), "Abstraction and reformulation in expert system", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 358, no. 1435, pp. 1197-1204, doi:10.1098/ rstb.2003.1317, PMC 1693218, PMID 12903653.
Hughes-Castleberry, Kenna, "A Murder Mystery Puzzle: The literary puzzle Cain's Jawbone, which has actually stumped humans for years, reveals the constraints of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder mystery competitors has revealed that although NLP (natural-language processing) models are capable of unbelievable tasks, pl.velo.wiki their abilities are quite restricted by the quantity of context they get. This [...] might trigger [problems] for scientists who wish to use them to do things such as evaluate ancient languages. In some cases, there are couple of historic records on long-gone civilizations to act as training information for such a function." (p. 82.).
Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: People now utilize A.I. to generate fake videos equivalent from real ones. How much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we indicate realistic videos produced utilizing expert system that actually deceive individuals, then they hardly exist. The phonies aren't deep, and the deeps aren't phony. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in basic, operating in our media as counterfeited evidence. Their role much better looks like that of cartoons, specifically smutty ones." (p. 59.).
- Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We need to prevent humanizing machine-learning designs used in clinical research", Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81.
Lepore, Jill, "The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a device a discussion?", The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16.
Marcus, Gary, "Artificial Confidence: Even the most recent, buzziest systems of synthetic basic intelligence are stymmied by the same old problems", Scientific American, vol. 327, no. 4 (October 2022), pp. 42-45.
McCarthy, John (October 2007), "From here to human-level AI", Expert System, 171 (18 ): 1174-1182, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.009.
McCorduck, Pamela (2004 ), Machines Who Think (second ed.), Natick, Massachusetts: A. K. Peters, ISBN 1-5688-1205-1.
Moravec, Hans (1976 ), The Role of Raw Power in Intelligence, archived from the initial on 3 March 2016, obtained 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, provided and dispersed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California.
Press, Eyal, "In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition technology lead police to disregard contradictory evidence?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26.
Roivainen, Eka, "AI's IQ: ChatGPT aced a [basic intelligence] test however showed that intelligence can not be determined 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 reasoning or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT appeared not able to reason logically and attempted to rely on its huge database of ... truths 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 effective but undependable. Rules-based systems can not deal with situations their programmers did not prepare for. Learning systems are limited by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have actually already caused catastrophe. Advanced auto-pilot functions in vehicles, although they perform well in some scenarios, have actually driven cars and trucks without warning into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked automobiles. In the wrong situation, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an immediate. When an opponent is attempting to control and hack an AI system, the threats are even higher." (p. 140.).
Sutherland, J. G. (1990 ), "Holographic Model of Memory, Learning, and Expression", International Journal of Neural Systems, vol. 1-3, pp. 256-267.
- Vincent, James, "Horny Robot Baby Voice: James Vincent on AI chatbots", London Review of Books, vol. 46, no. 19 (10 October 2024), pp. 29-32." [AI chatbot] programs are made possible by new technologies but count on the timelelss human propensity to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.).
Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.