Difference between revisions of "Artificial General Intelligence"

Revision as of 01:38, 3 February 2025

Artificial basic intelligence (AGI) is a kind of artificial intelligence (AI) that matches or surpasses human cognitive capabilities across a large range of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to specific jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, describes AGI that significantly surpasses human cognitive capabilities. AGI is considered one of the definitions of strong AI.


Creating AGI is a primary goal of AI research and of companies such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 study determined 72 active AGI research and development jobs throughout 37 nations. [4]

The timeline for attaining AGI stays a topic of ongoing dispute among researchers and professionals. As of 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or years; others maintain it might take a century or longer; a minority believe it might never be accomplished; and another minority claims that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has actually expressed concerns about the quick development towards AGI, wiki.fablabbcn.org recommending it could be achieved faster than many anticipate. [7]

There is dispute on the precise meaning of AGI and relating to whether contemporary large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early forms of AGI. [8] AGI is a common topic in science fiction and futures research studies. [9] [10]

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. [11] [12] [13] Many experts on AI have mentioned that alleviating the threat of human extinction posed by AGI must be a global priority. [14] [15] Others discover the development of AGI to be too remote to present such a threat. [16] [17]

Terminology


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

Some academic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience life or awareness. [a] In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to resolve one specific issue however lacks general cognitive capabilities. [22] [19] Some scholastic sources utilize "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness nor have a mind in the same sense as human beings. [a]

Related concepts consist of synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical type of AGI that is far more generally smart than people, [23] while the notion of transformative AI associates with AI having a large influence on society, for instance, comparable to the agricultural or commercial revolution. [24]

A structure for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They define 5 levels of AGI: emerging, competent, specialist, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a proficient AGI is specified as an AI that surpasses 50% of knowledgeable adults in a wide variety of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is similarly defined but with a limit of 100%. They think about big language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics


Various popular meanings of intelligence have been proposed. One of the leading propositions is the Turing test. However, there are other widely known meanings, and some researchers disagree with the more popular approaches. [b]

Intelligence characteristics


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

reason, use technique, resolve puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability
represent understanding, including common sense understanding
strategy
discover
- communicate in natural language
- if required, incorporate these skills in conclusion of any offered goal


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

Computer-based systems that display many of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated thinking, choice support system, robot, evolutionary calculation, intelligent representative). There is debate about whether modern AI systems possess them to an appropriate degree.


Physical characteristics


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

- the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and
- the capability to act (e.g. move and control objects, modification location to check out, etc).


This consists of the capability to spot and respond to threat. [31]

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the capability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate objects, modification area to check out, and so on) can be preferable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical abilities are not strictly required for an entity to certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that large language designs (LLMs) might currently be or become AGI. Even from a less positive point of view on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like type; 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 lines up with the understanding that AGI has actually never ever been proscribed a particular physical embodiment and thus does not demand a capacity for locomotion or conventional "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI


Several tests meant to confirm human-level AGI have actually been considered, consisting of: [33] [34]

The idea of the test is that the machine has to try and pretend to be a man, by addressing concerns put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is reasonably . A significant portion of a jury, who ought to not be expert about machines, should be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete issues


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

There are numerous problems that have actually been conjectured to need basic intelligence to resolve as well as human beings. Examples include computer vision, natural language understanding, and handling unexpected situations while resolving any real-world problem. [48] Even a particular job like translation requires a machine to check out and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (reason), comprehend the context (understanding), and consistently recreate the author's initial intent (social intelligence). All of these problems require to be solved concurrently in order to reach human-level maker performance.


However, a lot of these jobs can now be performed by contemporary big language designs. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has reached human-level efficiency on many standards for reading understanding and visual thinking. [49]

History


Classical AI


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

Their predictions were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers thought they might develop by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was an expert [53] on the job of making HAL 9000 as practical as possible according to the agreement forecasts of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of producing 'expert system' will considerably be resolved". [54]

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


However, in the early 1970s, it ended up being apparent that scientists had grossly undervalued the trouble of the job. Funding agencies ended up being skeptical 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 consisted of AGI goals like "continue a casual discussion". [58] In reaction to this and the success of expert systems, both market and government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, self-confidence in AI amazingly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the objectives of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever fulfilled. [60] For the second time in 20 years, AI scientists who anticipated the imminent achievement of AGI had been mistaken. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a credibility for making vain guarantees. They ended up being reluctant to make forecasts at all [d] and avoided mention of "human level" synthetic intelligence for fear of being labeled "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research


In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI accomplished business success and academic respectability by focusing on particular sub-problems where AI can produce proven results and commercial applications, such as speech acknowledgment and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now used thoroughly throughout the innovation market, and research study in this vein is greatly funded in both academic community and industry. As of 2018 [upgrade], development in this field was considered an emerging trend, and a fully grown phase was anticipated to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]

At the millenium, many mainstream AI researchers [65] hoped that strong AI could be developed by combining programs that solve numerous sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:


I am confident that this bottom-up route to expert system will one day satisfy the traditional top-down path more than half method, prepared to provide the real-world proficiency and the commonsense understanding that has been so frustratingly elusive in thinking programs. Fully smart devices will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven joining the two efforts. [65]

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


The expectation has typically been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way fulfill "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding considerations in this paper are valid, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is truly just one viable path 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, given that it looks as if getting there would just amount to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic meanings (consequently simply decreasing ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]

Modern artificial general intelligence research


The term "artificial general 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 representative maximises "the capability to please objectives in a vast array of environments". [68] This type of AGI, characterized by the ability to increase a mathematical meaning of intelligence instead of display human-like behaviour, [69] was likewise called universal artificial intelligence. [70]

The term AGI was re-introduced and popularized by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research activity in 2006 was described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and initial outcomes". The first summer season school in AGI was organized in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The first university course was given up 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT provided a course on AGI in 2018, organized by Lex Fridman and including a variety of visitor speakers.


As of 2023 [update], a little number of computer researchers are active in AGI research study, and numerous add to a series of AGI conferences. However, significantly more scientists have an interest in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the concept of allowing AI to continuously discover and innovate like people do.


Feasibility


As of 2023, the advancement and prospective achievement of AGI remains a subject of intense argument within the AI neighborhood. While standard agreement held that AGI was a distant objective, current developments have led some scientists and industry figures to claim that early forms of AGI may already exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do". This forecast stopped working to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is unlikely in the 21st century since it would require "unforeseeable and basically unforeseeable breakthroughs" and a "clinically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf between modern computing and human-level artificial intelligence is as broad as the gulf between current area flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A further obstacle is the lack of clarity in defining what intelligence requires. Does it need consciousness? Must it display the capability to set goals as well as pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if model sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as preparation, thinking, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence require clearly replicating the brain and its specific faculties? Does it require feelings? [81]

Most AI scientists think strong AI can be attained in the future, but some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of achieving strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who think human-level AI will be achieved, but that today level of development is such that a date can not properly be anticipated. [84] AI specialists' views on the feasibility of AGI wax and subside. Four surveys performed in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the typical quote among specialists for when they would be 50% confident AGI would show up was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the experts, 16.5% answered with "never" when asked the same concern however with a 90% confidence rather. [85] [86] Further current AGI development factors to consider can be found above Tests for verifying human-level AGI.


A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute discovered that "over [a] 60-year timespan 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 analyzed 95 predictions made between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will come about. [87]

In 2023, Microsoft researchers released an in-depth assessment of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, we think that it could reasonably be deemed an early (yet still insufficient) variation of a synthetic general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 surpasses 99% of humans on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig composed in 2023 that a significant level of basic intelligence has actually already been achieved with frontier models. They composed that hesitation to this view comes from four main factors: a "healthy uncertainty about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or techniques", a "dedication to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "concern about the economic ramifications of AGI". [91]

2023 likewise marked the introduction of big multimodal designs (big language designs efficient in processing or generating numerous methods such as text, audio, and images). [92]

In 2024, OpenAI launched o1-preview, the first of a series of designs that "spend more time believing before they respond". According to Mira Murati, this capability to think before reacting represents a brand-new, additional paradigm. It improves model outputs by investing more computing power when creating the response, whereas the model scaling paradigm improves outputs by increasing the design size, training data and training calculate power. [93] [94]

An OpenAI employee, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the business had actually achieved AGI, mentioning, "In my opinion, we have currently accomplished AGI and it's even more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "better than any human at any task", it is "better than the majority of humans at most jobs." He also resolved criticisms that large language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing process to the clinical approach of observing, assuming, and confirming. These statements have actually stimulated dispute, as they rely on a broad and non-traditional meaning of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models show remarkable flexibility, they may not fully satisfy this requirement. Notably, Kazemi's comments came quickly after OpenAI got rid of "AGI" from the terms of its collaboration with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the business's tactical objectives. [95]

Timescales


Progress in expert system has historically gone through periods of rapid development separated by durations when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were fundamental advances in hardware, software application or both to produce space for additional progress. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the hardware readily available in the twentieth century was not adequate to execute deep learning, which requires great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that estimates of the time required before a truly versatile AGI is built vary from ten years to over a century. Since 2007 [update], the consensus in the AGI research study neighborhood seemed to be that the timeline talked about by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. in between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI researchers have actually provided a large range of viewpoints on whether progress will be this rapid. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions found a predisposition towards forecasting that the start of AGI would take place within 16-26 years for modern-day and historic predictions alike. That paper has been criticized for how it classified 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 competitors with a top-5 test error rate of 15.3%, considerably much better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the traditional approach utilized a weighted sum of ratings from various pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered as the preliminary ground-breaker of the existing deep learning wave. [105]

In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu performed intelligence tests on openly 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 roughly to a six-year-old child in very first grade. A grownup 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 developed GPT-3, a language design capable of carrying out many varied jobs without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat post, while there is agreement that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is considered by some to be too advanced to be classified as a narrow AI system. [108]

In the very same year, Jason Rohrer utilized his GPT-3 account to develop a chatbot, and supplied a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI asked for modifications to the chatbot to adhere to their security guidelines; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

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

In 2023, Microsoft Research released a study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it exhibited more general intelligence than previous AI designs and demonstrated human-level efficiency in tasks covering numerous domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research triggered a dispute on whether GPT-4 could be thought about an early, insufficient variation of synthetic general intelligence, emphasizing the need for additional exploration and evaluation of such systems. [111]

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

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


In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly said that "The progress in the last few years has been pretty unbelievable", which he sees no factor why it would slow down, anticipating AGI within a years or even a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, stated his expectation that within five years, AI would can passing any test a minimum of along with people. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI worker, approximated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably plausible". [115]

Whole brain emulation


While the development of transformer models like in ChatGPT is considered the most appealing course to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can act as an alternative method. With entire brain simulation, a brain model is developed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and then copying and mimicing it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation design need to be adequately faithful to the original, so that it acts in practically the exact same way as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a type of brain simulation that is gone over in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research purposes. It has actually been talked about in expert system research [103] as an approach to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that could deliver the essential detailed understanding are improving quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] predicts that a map of sufficient quality will appear on a comparable timescale to the computing power needed to emulate it.


Early approximates


For low-level brain simulation, a very powerful cluster of computers or GPUs would be required, given the massive amount of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other nerve cells. The brain of a three-year-old kid has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number decreases with age, supporting by their adult years. Estimates differ for an adult, ranging from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A price quote of the brain's processing power, based on a simple switch model for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil looked at different quotes for the hardware needed to equate to the human brain and adopted a figure of 1016 computations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "computation" was equivalent to one "floating-point operation" - a measure utilized to rate existing supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be equivalent to 10 petaFLOPS, achieved in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He used this figure to anticipate the essential hardware would be readily available sometime between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential growth in computer system power at the time of composing continued.


Current research


The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded initiative active from 2013 to 2023, has actually established a particularly comprehensive and publicly available atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, scientists from Duke University carried out a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.


Criticisms of simulation-based approaches


The artificial neuron model presumed by Kurzweil and utilized in lots of present artificial neural network applications is simple compared to biological nerve cells. A brain simulation would likely need to capture the comprehensive cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, currently comprehended just in broad overview. The overhead presented by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (especially on a molecular scale) would need computational powers a number of orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's price quote. In addition, the quotes do not account for glial cells, which are known to play a function in cognitive processes. [125]

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


Philosophical viewpoint


"Strong AI" as specified in approach


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

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


The very first one he called "strong" because it makes a more powerful declaration: it assumes something unique has happened to the maker that surpasses those abilities that we can test. The behaviour of a "weak AI" device would be specifically similar to a "strong AI" device, however the latter would also have subjective mindful experience. This use is likewise common in academic AI research and books. [129]

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

Mainstream AI is most thinking about how a program acts. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they do not care if you call it real or a simulation." [130] If the program can act as if it has a mind, then there is no requirement to know if it in fact has mind - certainly, there would be no other way to inform. For AI research study, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is comparable to the statement "artificial basic intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for given, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for scholastic AI research study, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 different things.


Consciousness


Consciousness can have various meanings, and some elements play significant functions in science fiction and the ethics of expert system:


Sentience (or "sensational consciousness"): The capability to "feel" understandings or feelings subjectively, rather than the capability to reason about perceptions. Some philosophers, such as David Chalmers, utilize the term "consciousness" to refer solely to remarkable consciousness, which is approximately equivalent to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience arises is referred to as the hard issue of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel described in 1974 that it "seems like" something to be mindful. If we are not conscious, then it doesn't 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 not likely 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 declared that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had accomplished life, though this claim was widely challenged by other professionals. [135]

Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a different individual, especially to be consciously aware of one's own thoughts. This is opposed to merely being the "topic of one's thought"-an os or debugger has the ability to be "aware of itself" (that is, to represent itself in the very same method it represents everything else)-but this is not what individuals usually suggest when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]

These qualities have an ethical measurement. AI sentience would offer rise to concerns of welfare and legal protection, similarly to animals. [136] Other aspects of consciousness associated to cognitive capabilities are likewise appropriate to the concept of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to incorporate advanced AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emerging concern. [138]

Benefits


AGI could have a broad range of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI might help reduce various problems worldwide such as cravings, poverty and health issue. [139]

AGI might improve performance and performance in many jobs. For example, in public health, AGI might speed up medical research, significantly versus cancer. [140] It could take care of the senior, [141] and democratize access to quick, high-quality medical diagnostics. It might offer fun, inexpensive and individualized education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist could end up being outdated if the wealth produced is correctly rearranged. [141] [142] This likewise raises the concern of the location of human beings in a drastically automated society.


AGI could likewise assist to make rational decisions, and to prepare for and avoid catastrophes. It could likewise assist to profit of possibly catastrophic innovations such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while avoiding the associated dangers. [143] If an AGI's main objective is to prevent existential catastrophes such as human termination (which could be hard if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being true), [144] it could take measures to drastically lower the threats [143] while decreasing the impact of these steps on our quality of life.


Risks


Existential risks


AGI may represent several types of existential threat, which are threats that threaten "the premature extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or the permanent and drastic damage of its potential for desirable future advancement". [145] The risk of human termination from AGI has been the subject of many arguments, however there is likewise the possibility that the advancement of AGI would result in a completely problematic future. Notably, it might be used to spread out and protect the set of values of whoever establishes it. If humankind still has moral blind spots similar to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, avoiding ethical progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI could assist in mass security and brainwashing, which might be used to create a stable repressive worldwide totalitarian regime. [147] [148] There is also a threat for the makers themselves. If devices that are sentient or otherwise deserving of ethical factor to consider are mass developed in the future, participating in a civilizational course that forever disregards their well-being and interests might be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering how much AGI could enhance mankind's future and help in reducing other existential dangers, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for continuing with due care", not for "abandoning AI". [147]

Risk of loss of control and human termination


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

In 2014, Stephen Hawking slammed extensive indifference:


So, dealing with possible futures of incalculable benefits and dangers, the specialists are undoubtedly doing whatever possible to make sure the very best outcome, right? Wrong. If an exceptional alien civilisation sent us a message saying, 'We'll arrive in a few years,' 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 occurring with AI. [153]

The prospective fate of mankind has actually sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast mentions that higher intelligence allowed humanity to dominate gorillas, which are now susceptible in ways that they could not have expected. As an outcome, the gorilla has actually become an endangered types, not out of malice, however just as a collateral damage from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun considers that AGIs will have no desire to dominate humanity which we should take care not to anthropomorphize them and translate their intents as we would for human beings. He said that individuals will not be "smart sufficient to create super-intelligent makers, yet ridiculously stupid to the point of giving it moronic goals with no safeguards". [155] On the other side, the idea of instrumental merging recommends that practically whatever their objectives, smart representatives will have reasons to try to survive and obtain more power as intermediary actions to achieving these objectives. And that this does not need having feelings. [156]

Many scholars who are concerned about existential threat advocate for more research into resolving the "control issue" to answer the concern: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers execute to increase the likelihood that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, rather than destructive, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is made complex by the AI arms race (which could lead to a race to the bottom of security preventative measures in order to launch items before competitors), [159] and using AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can posture existential danger also has critics. Skeptics generally say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI distract from other issues related to current AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for many individuals outside of the technology industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are already viewed as though they were AGI, resulting in further misunderstanding and fear. [162]

Skeptics in some cases 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 think that the interaction campaigns on AI existential risk by specific AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might be an at attempt at regulatory capture and to inflate interest in their products. [164] [165]

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

Mass unemployment


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


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

Everyone can delight in a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or the majority of individuals can wind up miserably bad if the machine-owners effectively lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the pattern seems to be towards the 2nd choice, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality


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

See likewise


Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities similar to those of the animal or human brain
AI impact
AI safety - Research location on making AI safe and advantageous
AI alignment - AI conformance to the designated objective
A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža
Artificial intelligence
Automated device knowing - Process of automating the application of machine 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 game playing - Ability of expert system to play different video games
Generative artificial intelligence - AI system capable of creating content in action to prompts
Human Brain Project - Scientific research job
Intelligence amplification - Use of details technology to augment human intelligence (IA).
Machine principles - Moral behaviours of man-made machines.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task learning - Solving numerous machine discovering jobs at the very same time.
Neural scaling law - Statistical law in artificial intelligence.
Outline of expert system - Overview of and topical guide to synthetic intelligence.
Transhumanism - Philosophical movement.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or kind of artificial intelligence.
Transfer learning - Machine knowing method.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competition.
Hardware for expert system - Hardware specifically developed and optimized for artificial intelligence.
Weak expert system - Form of artificial intelligence.


Notes


^ a b See below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the scholastic meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the article Chinese room.
^ AI founder John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet define in general what kinds of computational procedures we wish to call smart. " [26] (For a conversation of some meanings of intelligence used by artificial intelligence scientists, see viewpoint of expert system.).
^ The Lighthill report specifically criticized AI's "grand objectives" and led the taking apart of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA ended up being determined to fund only "mission-oriented direct research study, instead of standard undirected research study". [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy composes "it would be a great relief to the remainder of the employees in AI if the innovators of new basic formalisms would express their hopes in a more protected form than has actually sometimes been the case." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More just recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would approximately represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented.
^ As specified in a standard AI book: "The assertion that devices could possibly act smartly (or, possibly much better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that devices that do so are really believing (as opposed to simulating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References


^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is artificial narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is developed to perform a single job.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our objective is to guarantee that artificial general intelligence benefits all of mankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's brand-new objective is developing artificial basic intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to build AI that is much better than human-level at all of the human senses.
^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D tasks were recognized as being active in 2020.
^ a b c "AI timelines: What do experts in expert system expect for the future?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
^ Metz, Cade (15 May 2023). "Some Researchers Say A.I. Is Already Here, Stirring Debate in Tech Circles". The New York City Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023.
^ "AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton gives up Google and warns of danger ahead". The New York City Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is difficult to see how you can prevent 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 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 alter modifications you.
^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming.
^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Artificial Intelligence". The New York Times. The real risk is not AI itself but the way we deploy it.
^ "Impressed by expert system? Experts state AGI is coming next, and it has 'existential' threats". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might position existential threats 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 Times. Mitigating the danger of extinction from AI should be an international priority.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts warn of danger of termination from AI.
^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York City Times. We are far from producing machines that can outthink us in basic methods.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not provide an existential threat". Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential risk.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the original on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil describes strong AI as "maker intelligence with the full variety of human intelligence.".
^ "The Age of Artificial Intelligence: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the initial on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they utilize for "human-level" intelligence in the physical symbol system hypothesis.
^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the initial on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
^ "What is artificial superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Expert system is changing our world - it is on 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 attaining AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat.
^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of smart characteristics is based upon 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: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body shapes the method we believe: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reconsidered: 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 principle of proficiency". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the original on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the initial on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What takes place when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ "Eugene Goostman is a genuine boy - the Turing Test states so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ "Scientists challenge whether computer 'Eugene Goostman' passed Turing test". BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). "People can not distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC]
^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI models like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing whatever from the bar exam to AP Biology. Here's a list of hard tests both AI variations have 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 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 recommended 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 ). "Expert System" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (Second ed.). New York City: 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 Specifying 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 priced quote in Crevier 1993, p. 109.
^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008.
^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), quoted in Crevier (1993, p. 109).
^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994.
^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment".
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22.
^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see likewise Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212.
^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). "Respond to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the initial 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 application engineers prevented the term expert system for worry of being deemed 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 Upon 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 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 Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ "Who coined the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the initial on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., through 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 original on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 - зимен триместър" [Elective courses 2010/2011 - winter season trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limits of device intelligence: Despite progress in maker intelligence, artificial basic intelligence is still a major 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 explores 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 turn 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 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 artificial intelligence bring us utopia or destruction?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future development in synthetic intelligence: A study of professional viewpoint. In Fundamental problems of expert system (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.
^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, modified by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia
^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023.
^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The creativity of devices: AI takes the Torrance Test". Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185.
^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema.
^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). "Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024". Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
^ "Introducing OpenAI o1-preview". OpenAI. 12 September 2024.
^ Knight, Will. "OpenAI Announces a Brand-new AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024.
^ "OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved". Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024.
^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ "Next-Gen AI: OpenAI and Meta's Leap Towards Reasoning Machines". Unite.ai. 19 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ James, Alex P. (2022 ). "The Why, What, and How of Artificial General Intelligence Chip Development". IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. 14 (2 ): 333-347. arXiv:2012.06338. doi:10.1109/ TCDS.2021.3069871. ISSN 2379-8920. S2CID 228376556. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
^ Pei, Jing; Deng, Lei; Song, Sen; Zhao, Mingguo; Zhang, Youhui; Wu, Shuang; Wang, Guanrui; Zou, Zhe; Wu, Zhenzhi; He, Wei; Chen, Feng; Deng, Ning; Wu, Si; Wang, Yu; Wu, Yujie (2019 ). "Towards synthetic 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 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 function of GPU computing and deep learning in drug discovery". Nature Machine Intelligence. 4 (3 ): 211-221. doi:10.1038/ s42256-022-00463-x. ISSN 2522-5839. S2CID 252081559.
^ Goertzel & Pennachin 2006.
^ a b c (Kurzweil 2005, p. 260).
^ a b c Goertzel 2007.
^ Grace, Katja (2016 ). "Error in Armstrong and Sotala 2012". AI Impacts (blog). Archived from the 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 initial 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 basic AI". VentureBeat. Archived from the initial on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020. Certainly, too, there are those who claim we are currently seeing an early example of an AGI system in the just recently revealed GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. ... So is GPT-3 the very first example of an AGI system? This is arguable, however the agreement is that it is not AGI. ... If nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a middle ground between narrow and basic AI.
^ Quach, Katyanna. "A developer built an AI chatbot utilizing GPT-3 that helped a guy speak once again to his late fiancée. OpenAI shut it down". The Register. Archived from the original on 16 October 2021. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
^ Wiggers, Kyle (13 May 2022), "DeepMind's new AI can carry out over 600 tasks, from playing video games to managing robotics", TechCrunch, archived from the initial on 16 June 2022, obtained 12 June 2022.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (22 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ Metz, Cade (1 May 2023). "' The Godfather of A.I.' Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ Bove, Tristan. "A.I. might match human intelligence in 'simply a couple of years,' states CEO of Google's primary A.I. research study laboratory". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO says AI could pass human tests in five years". Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead".
^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). "Why everyone 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 initial on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
^ de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser 2008. A wide range of views in current research study, all of which require grounding to some degree
^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How submitting our minds to a computer may 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 (estimated in" Encyclopedia.com"),.
MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (priced quote in "AITopics"),.
Will Biological Computers Enable Artificially Intelligent Machines to Become Persons? Archived 13 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Anthony Tongen.




^ a b c Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 947.
^ though see Explainable expert system for interest by the field about why a program acts 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 thinks 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 Artificial Intelligence Have Moral or Legal Rights?". The Wall Street Journal.
^ "Artificial General Intelligence - Do [es] the expense surpass benefits?". 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ "How we can Take advantage of Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) - Unite.AI". www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. "What Will Our Society Look 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, dangers, strategies (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom; New York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2.
^ Piper, Kelsey (19 November 2018). "How technological progress is making it likelier than ever that human beings will ruin ourselves". Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). "Climate change an 'existential security risk' to Australia, Senate query states". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023.
^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York City, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6.
^ a b Ord, Toby (2020 ). "Chapter 5: Future Risks, Unaligned Expert System". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9.
^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious". Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). "Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023.
^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ a b "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ "Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the ramifications of expert system - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'". The Independent (UK). Archived from the original on 25 September 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2014.
^ Herger, Mario. "The Gorilla Problem - Enterprise Garage". Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ "The interesting Facebook dispute in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the threats of strong AI". The interesting Facebook dispute in 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 catastrophic AGI danger: 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 threats 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 hazard presented but synthetic intelligence can not be overlooked". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ "Humanity, Security & AI, Oh My! (with Ian Bremmer & Shuman Ghosemajumder)". CAFE. 20 July 2023. Retrieved 15 September 2023.
^ Hamblin, James (9 May 2014). "But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me?". The Atlantic. Archived from the initial on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
^ Titcomb, James (30 October 2023). "Big Tech is stoking worries over AI, alert researchers". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain founder says big tech is lying about AI extinction risk". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Eloundou, Tyna; Manning, Sam; Mishkin, Pamela; Rock, Daniel (17 March 2023). "GPTs are GPTs: An early appearance at the labor market effect capacity of big language models". OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). "OpenAI states 80% of employees might see their jobs affected by AI. These are the jobs most impacted". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk says we require universal basic earnings since 'in the future, manual labor will be an option'". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
Sources


UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the initial on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021.
Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press.
Clocksin, William (August 2003), "Artificial intelligence and the future", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007.
Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous Look For Artificial Intelligence. New York, NY: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-02997-3.
Darrach, Brad (20 November 1970), "Meet Shakey, the First Electronic Person", Life Magazine, pp. 58-68.
Drachman, D. (2005 ), "Do we have brain to spare?", Neurology, 64 (12 ): 2004-2005, doi:10.1212/ 01. WNL.0000166914.38327. BB, PMID 15985565, S2CID 38482114.
Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983 ), The Fifth Generation: Artificial Intelligence and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World, Michael Joseph, ISBN 978-0-7181-2401-4.
Goertzel, Ben; Pennachin, Cassio, eds. (2006 ), Artificial General Intelligence (PDF), Springer, ISBN 978-3-5402-3733-4, archived from the original (PDF) on 20 March 2013.
Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), "Human-level artificial basic intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a reaction to Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott's review of Kurzweil", 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, retrieved 7 May 2011.
Howe, J. (November 1994), Expert System 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 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 accomplish goals on the planet in addition to people.
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 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, recovered 7 November 2009
Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1976 ). "Computer Technology as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search". Communications of the ACM. 19 (3 ): 113-126. doi:10.1145/ 360018.360022.
Nilsson, Nils (1998 ), Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, ISBN 978-1-5586-0467-4
NRC (1999 ), "Developments in Expert System", 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 Sensible Approach, New York: Oxford University Press, archived from the original on 25 July 2009, obtained 6 December 2007
Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003 ), Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (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 City: Harper & Row
Turing, Alan (October 1950). "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". Mind. 59 (236 ): 433-460. doi:10.1093/ mind/LIX.236.433. ISSN 1460-2113. JSTOR 2251299. S2CID 14636783.


de Vega, Manuel; Glenberg, Arthur; Graesser, Arthur, eds. (2008 ), Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on 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 - 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 numbers of neuronal and nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled-up primate brain", The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 513 (5 ): 532-541, doi:10.1002/ cne.21974, PMID 19226510, S2CID 5200449, archived from the initial on 18 February 2021, 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, obtained 31 August 2012
Cukier, Kenneth, "Ready for Robots? How to Think about the Future of AI", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 4 (July/August 2019), pp. 192-98. George Dyson, historian of computing, writes (in what might be called "Dyson's Law") that "Any system easy sufficient to be reasonable will not be complicated enough to behave intelligently, while any system complicated enough to behave wisely will be too made complex to understand." (p. 197.) Computer scientist Alex Pentland composes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead simple 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, obtained 25 July 2010.
Gleick, James, "The Fate of Free Choice" (evaluation of Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Choice, Princeton University Press, 2023, 333 pp.), The New York City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. "Agency is what distinguishes us from makers. For biological creatures, reason and purpose come from acting worldwide and experiencing the effects. Artificial intelligences - disembodied, strangers to blood, sweat, and tears - have no event for that." (p. 30.).
Halal, William E. "TechCast Article Series: The Automation of Thought" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 June 2013.
- Halpern, Sue, "The Coming Tech Autocracy" (review of Verity Harding, AI Needs You: How We Can Change AI's Future and Save Our Own, Princeton University Press, 274 pp.; Gary Marcus, Taming Silicon Valley: How We Can Ensure That AI Works for Us, MIT Press, 235 pp.; Daniela Rus and Gregory Mone, The Mind's Mirror: Risk and Reward in the Age of AI, Norton, 280 pp.; Madhumita Murgia, Code Dependent: Living in the Shadow of AI, Henry Holt, 311 pp.), The New York City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. "' We can't reasonably expect that those who want to get rich from AI are going to have the interests of the rest of us close at heart,' ... composes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't depend on governments driven by campaign finance contributions [from tech business] to push back.' ... Marcus details the demands that residents should make from their federal governments and the tech companies. They include transparency on how AI systems work; compensation for people if their information [are] used to train LLMs (big language model) s and the right to grant this usage; and the capability to hold tech companies responsible for the harms they trigger by removing Section 230, enforcing cash penalites, and passing more stringent product liability laws ... Marcus likewise recommends ... that a new, AI-specific federal agency, comparable to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, might offer the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law teacher Chinmayi Sharma ... recommends ... develop [ing] a professional licensing routine for engineers that would operate in a similar way to medical licenses, malpractice suits, and the Hippocratic oath in medicine. 'What if, like doctors,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers likewise promised to do no damage?'" (p. 46.).
Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), "Abstraction and reformulation in expert system", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 358, no. 1435, pp. 1197-1204, doi:10.1098/ rstb.2003.1317, PMC 1693218, PMID 12903653.
Hughes-Castleberry, Kenna, "A Murder Mystery Puzzle: The literary puzzle Cain's Jawbone, which has baffled human beings for years, exposes the constraints of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder mystery competitors has actually revealed that although NLP (natural-language processing) designs are capable of extraordinary accomplishments, their abilities are quite restricted by the quantity of context they receive. This [...] might trigger [problems] for scientists who want to use them to do things such as analyze ancient languages. Sometimes, there are couple of historical 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 produce phony videos equivalent from genuine ones. Just how much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we indicate realistic videos produced utilizing artificial intelligence that in fact trick individuals, then they hardly exist. The fakes aren't deep, and the deeps aren't phony. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in basic, operating in our media as counterfeited proof. Their function better resembles that of cartoons, specifically smutty ones." (p. 59.).
- Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We need to avoid humanizing machine-learning designs utilized in clinical research study", Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81.
Lepore, Jill, "The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a maker 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", Artificial Intelligence, 171 (18 ): 1174-1182, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.009.
McCorduck, Pamela (2004 ), Machines Who Think (2nd ed.), Natick, Massachusetts: A. K. Peters, ISBN 1-5688-1205-1.
Moravec, Hans (1976 ), The Role of Raw Power in Intelligence, archived from the original on 3 March 2016, retrieved 29 September 2007.
Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1963 ), "GPS: A Program that Simulates Human Thought", in Feigenbaum, E. A.; Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, New York City: McGraw-Hill.
Omohundro, Steve (2008 ), The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence, presented and dispersed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California.
Press, Eyal, "In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition innovation lead authorities to ignore inconsistent proof?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26.
Roivainen, Eka, "AI's IQ: ChatGPT aced a [standard intelligence] test however revealed that intelligence can not be measured by IQ alone", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 1 (July/August 2023), p. 7. "Despite its high IQ, ChatGPT stops working at jobs that need genuine humanlike reasoning or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT appeared unable to reason logically and tried to count on its vast database of ... truths derived from online texts. "
- Scharre, Paul, "Killer Apps: The Real Dangers of an AI Arms Race", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 3 (May/June 2019), pp. 135-44. "Today's AI technologies are powerful but unreliable. Rules-based systems can not deal with situations their programmers did not expect. Learning systems are limited by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have actually currently resulted in tragedy. Advanced auto-pilot features in cars, although they perform well in some scenarios, have driven vehicles without cautioning into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked automobiles. In the incorrect situation, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an instant. When an enemy is attempting to control and hack an AI system, the dangers are even higher." (p. 140.).
Sutherland, J. G. (1990 ), "Holographic Model of Memory, Learning, and Expression", International Journal of Neural Systems, vol. 1-3, pp. 256-267.
- Vincent, James, "Horny Robot Baby Voice: James Vincent on AI chatbots", London Review of Books, vol. 46, no. 19 (10 October 2024), pp. 29-32." [AI chatbot] programs are made possible by brand-new technologies however depend on the timelelss human propensity to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.).
Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.