GitLab

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a kind of artificial intelligence (AI) that matches or goes beyond human cognitive abilities across a large range of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is restricted to particular jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, describes AGI that significantly exceeds human cognitive capabilities. AGI is considered among the meanings of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a primary goal of AI research study and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 survey recognized 72 active AGI research and development jobs throughout 37 countries. [4]
The timeline for achieving AGI stays a subject of continuous argument among scientists and experts. Since 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or decades; others maintain it might take a century or longer; a minority believe it may never be accomplished; and another minority claims that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton has actually revealed issues about the quick progress towards AGI, suggesting it could be accomplished quicker than numerous anticipate. [7]
There is dispute on the exact definition of AGI and relating to whether contemporary big language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early types of AGI. [8] AGI is a common topic in sci-fi and futures research studies. [9] [10]
Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. [11] [12] [13] Many specialists on AI have actually mentioned that reducing the threat of human extinction postured by AGI must be a global top priority. [14] [15] Others find the advancement of AGI to be too remote to present such a danger. [16] [17]
Terminology

AGI is likewise referred to as strong AI, [18] [19] complete AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level intelligent AI, or general intelligent action. [21]
Some academic sources schedule the term "strong AI" for computer system programs that experience sentience or consciousness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to fix one specific issue however does not have general cognitive capabilities. [22] [19] Some scholastic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness nor have a mind in the same sense as people. [a]
Related ideas include synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical kind of AGI that is much more generally smart than human beings, [23] while the idea of transformative AI relates to AI having a large effect on society, for instance, similar to the agricultural or commercial revolution. [24]
A framework for classifying AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They define 5 levels of AGI: emerging, qualified, kenpoguy.com professional, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a proficient AGI is specified as an AI that outperforms 50% of experienced adults in a large range of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is similarly specified however with a limit of 100%. They think about big language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]
Characteristics

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

Researchers generally hold that intelligence is needed to do all of the following: [27]
factor, use strategy, fix puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability represent understanding, including sound judgment understanding plan find out

• communicate in natural language
• if needed, integrate these abilities in completion of any given goal

Many interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) consider additional characteristics such as creativity (the ability to form novel mental images and ideas) [28] and autonomy. [29]
Computer-based systems that display numerous of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated thinking, decision support group, robotic, evolutionary calculation, smart agent). There is dispute about whether contemporary AI systems have them to an adequate degree.

Physical qualities

Other abilities are considered preferable in smart systems, as they might affect intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: [30]
- the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on), and - the capability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate items, modification place to check out, etc).
This includes the ability to identify and react to threat. [31]
Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the ability to act (e.g. move and manipulate items, change place to explore, etc) can be preferable for some smart systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly needed for an entity to certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language designs (LLMs) might already be or end up being AGI. Even from a less optimistic perspective on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like form; being a silicon-based computational system is sufficient, provided it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This interpretation aligns with the understanding that AGI has never been proscribed a specific physical personification and therefore does not demand a capacity for mobility or standard "eyes and ears". [32]
Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests implied to confirm human-level AGI have been thought about, consisting of: [33] [34]
The concept of the test is that the maker has to try and pretend to be a guy, by addressing concerns put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is reasonably convincing. A considerable part of a jury, who need to not be expert about devices, should be taken in by the pretence. [37]
AI-complete problems

An issue is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is believed that in order to solve it, one would require to carry out AGI, since the service is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]
There are lots of problems that have actually been conjectured to require general intelligence to solve in addition to human beings. Examples consist of computer system vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unanticipated scenarios while resolving any real-world problem. [48] Even a specific job like translation requires a device to check out and write in both languages, follow the author's argument (reason), comprehend the context (understanding), and consistently reproduce the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these problems need to be solved at the same time in order to reach human-level machine efficiency.

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

Classical AI

Modern AI research started in the mid-1950s. [50] The first generation of AI scientists were persuaded that synthetic general intelligence was possible and that it would exist in just a few decades. [51] AI leader Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: "makers 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 scientists believed they might develop by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was an expert [53] on the job of making HAL 9000 as realistic as possible according to the consensus predictions of the time. He stated in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of creating 'expert system' will significantly be solved". [54]
Several classical AI jobs, such as Doug Lenat's Cyc project (that started in 1984), and Allen Newell's Soar task, were directed at AGI.

However, in the early 1970s, it became obvious that scientists had grossly ignored the difficulty of the task. Funding companies became skeptical of AGI and put scientists under increasing pressure to produce helpful "used 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 "bring on a casual discussion". [58] In response to this and the success of professional systems, both market and federal government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI marvelously collapsed in the late 1980s, and the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever satisfied. [60] For the 2nd time in 20 years, AI scientists who forecasted the imminent accomplishment of AGI had actually been mistaken. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a credibility for making vain pledges. They became hesitant to make forecasts at all [d] and prevented reference of "human level" expert system for worry of being identified "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]
Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI attained industrial success and academic respectability by concentrating on particular sub-problems where AI can produce proven results and commercial applications, such as speech acknowledgment and suggestion algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now used extensively throughout the technology industry, and research study in this vein is heavily funded in both academic community and industry. Since 2018 [update], advancement in this field was considered an emerging pattern, and a fully grown stage was anticipated to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]
At the turn of the century, many mainstream AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI might be established by combining programs that fix various sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:

I am positive that this bottom-up path to expert system will one day satisfy the conventional top-down route majority way, ready to supply the real-world proficiency and the commonsense knowledge that has actually been so frustratingly evasive in reasoning programs. Fully intelligent devices will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven joining the 2 efforts. [65]
However, even at the time, this was contested. For example, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the symbol grounding hypothesis by stating:

The expectation has actually often been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow meet "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 truly only one practical route from sense to symbols: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software application level of a computer will never be reached by this path (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we ought to even try to reach such a level, given that it appears arriving would just amount to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic meanings (thus simply minimizing ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer system). [66]
Modern artificial general intelligence research

The term "artificial basic intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a discussion of the ramifications 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 maximises "the capability to satisfy goals in a wide variety of environments". [68] This kind of AGI, identified by the capability to maximise a mathematical meaning of intelligence instead of show human-like behaviour, [69] was likewise called universal synthetic intelligence. [70]
The term AGI was re-introduced and promoted by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research activity in 2006 was described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and initial results". The very first summer season school in AGI was arranged in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The very first university course was offered in 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT provided a course on AGI in 2018, arranged by Lex Fridman and including a variety of guest speakers.

As of 2023 [upgrade], a little number of computer system scientists are active in AGI research, and many contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, significantly more scientists are interested in open-ended knowing, [76] [77] which is the idea of allowing AI to continually discover and innovate like human beings do.

Feasibility

Since 2023, the advancement and possible achievement of AGI stays a subject of extreme argument within the AI neighborhood. While conventional agreement held that AGI was a distant goal, recent advancements have led some scientists and market figures to claim that early kinds of AGI might currently exist. [78] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do". This prediction stopped working to come true. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is unlikely in the 21st century because it would need "unforeseeable and basically unpredictable developments" and a "scientifically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield claimed the gulf between contemporary computing and human-level artificial intelligence is as large as the gulf in between existing area flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]
A further challenge is the lack of clearness in defining what intelligence entails. Does it require awareness? Must it show the ability to set objectives along with pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if model sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as planning, thinking, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence require explicitly replicating the brain and its particular professors? Does it need emotions? [81]
Most AI researchers think strong AI can be achieved in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of attaining strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who think human-level AI will be achieved, however that the present level of progress is such that a date can not precisely be predicted. [84] AI specialists' views on the expediency of AGI wax and subside. Four surveys carried out in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the median price quote among specialists for when they would be 50% confident AGI would get here was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the specialists, 16.5% addressed with "never" when asked the very same concern but with a 90% confidence instead. [85] [86] Further existing AGI progress 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 found that "over [a] 60-year amount of time there is a strong predisposition towards predicting the arrival of human-level AI as between 15 and 25 years from the time the prediction was made". They evaluated 95 predictions made in between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will come about. [87]
In 2023, Microsoft researchers released a detailed examination of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, our company believe that it could fairly be viewed as an early (yet still insufficient) variation of a synthetic basic intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outperforms 99% of humans on the Torrance tests of innovative thinking. [89] [90]
Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig wrote in 2023 that a significant level of general intelligence has actually already been attained with frontier designs. They wrote that hesitation to this view originates from four main reasons: a "healthy uncertainty about metrics for AGI", an "ideological commitment to alternative AI theories or strategies", a "commitment to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "concern about the financial ramifications of AGI". [91]
2023 likewise marked the development of big multimodal models (big language designs efficient in processing or generating numerous methods such as text, audio, and images). [92]
In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the first of a series of models that "spend more time believing before they react". According to Mira Murati, this ability to believe before responding represents a new, extra paradigm. It enhances design outputs by spending more computing power when producing the answer, whereas the model scaling paradigm enhances outputs by increasing the design size, training data and training compute power. [93] [94]
An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, claimed in 2024 that the company had attained AGI, specifying, "In my viewpoint, we have actually already 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 task", it is "much better than a lot of humans at the majority of tasks." He likewise attended to criticisms that big language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing procedure to the scientific approach of observing, hypothesizing, and verifying. These declarations have actually triggered argument, as they depend on a broad and non-traditional definition of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence across all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's designs demonstrate amazing adaptability, they may not fully satisfy this standard. Notably, Kazemi's comments came quickly after OpenAI removed "AGI" from the regards to its partnership with Microsoft, triggering speculation about the business's tactical intents. [95]
Timescales

Progress in synthetic intelligence has historically gone through durations of rapid progress separated by periods when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were basic advances in hardware, software or both to create space for further development. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware offered in the twentieth century was not adequate to carry out deep knowing, which requires great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]
In the intro to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that quotes of the time needed before a really flexible AGI is developed differ from 10 years to over a century. As of 2007 [upgrade], the agreement in the AGI research 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 possible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have actually given a vast array of opinions on whether development will be this fast. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such viewpoints found a bias towards anticipating that the start of AGI would occur within 16-26 years for contemporary and historical forecasts alike. That paper has actually been criticized for how it classified viewpoints as professional or non-expert. [104]
In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton developed a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competitors with a top-5 test mistake rate of 15.3%, substantially much better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the conventional approach utilized a weighted sum of scores from various pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered as the initial ground-breaker of the existing deep knowing wave. [105]
In 2017, scientists Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu conducted intelligence tests on publicly readily available 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 around to a six-year-old child in first grade. An adult comes to about 100 usually. Similar tests were carried out in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching an optimum value of 27. [106] [107]
In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language model capable of performing numerous diverse jobs without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat post, while there is agreement that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is considered by some to be too advanced to be categorized as a narrow AI system. [108]
In the very same year, Jason Rohrer utilized his GPT-3 account to establish a chatbot, and supplied a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested changes to the chatbot to comply with their safety guidelines; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]
In 2022, DeepMind established Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of carrying out more than 600 various tasks. [110]
In 2023, Microsoft Research published a study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, competing that it displayed more basic intelligence than previous AI designs and demonstrated human-level performance in jobs spanning numerous domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study triggered an argument on whether GPT-4 could be thought about an early, insufficient variation of synthetic basic intelligence, emphasizing the need for additional expedition and examination of such systems. [111]
In 2023, the AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton specified that: [112]
The idea that this things might in fact get smarter than people - a couple of individuals believed that, [...] But a lot of individuals believed it was way off. And I thought it was way off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years or even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis likewise said that "The progress in the last couple of years has actually been pretty unbelievable", which he sees no reason why it would slow down, expecting AGI within a years and even a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, stated his expectation that within 5 years, AI would can passing any test at least along with people. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI worker, approximated AGI by 2027 to be "strikingly possible". [115]
Whole brain emulation

While the advancement of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is considered the most appealing path to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can work as an alternative approach. With whole brain simulation, a brain model is built by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and after that copying and imitating it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation design must be sufficiently faithful to the initial, so that it behaves in virtually the very same way as the initial brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a type of brain simulation that is discussed in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study functions. It has been discussed in synthetic intelligence research [103] as an approach to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that might deliver the necessary in-depth understanding are enhancing quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] predicts that a map of sufficient quality will become available on a similar timescale to the computing power needed to emulate it.

Early approximates

For low-level brain simulation, a really effective cluster of computers or GPUs would be needed, provided the massive amount of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) neurons has on typical 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other nerve cells. The brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates differ for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] An estimate of the brain's processing power, based on a basic switch design for nerve cell activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]
In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at numerous quotes for the hardware required to equate to the human brain and adopted a figure of 1016 computations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "computation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a measure utilized to rate current supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, achieved in 2011, while 1018 was achieved in 2022.) He used this figure to forecast the necessary hardware would be readily available sometime between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid growth in computer system power at the time of composing continued.

Current research study

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

Criticisms of simulation-based techniques

The artificial nerve cell model assumed by Kurzweil and used in numerous current artificial neural network executions is simple compared to biological nerve cells. A brain simulation would likely need to catch the in-depth cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, currently comprehended just in broad overview. The overhead introduced by complete modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (specifically on a molecular scale) would require computational powers several orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's estimate. In addition, the estimates do not represent glial cells, which are understood to contribute in cognitive procedures. [125]
A fundamental criticism of the simulated brain approach originates from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is a vital element of human intelligence and is necessary to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is appropriate, any fully functional brain design will need to encompass more than simply the nerve cells (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual embodiment (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an option, but it is unidentified whether this would be enough.

Philosophical perspective

"Strong AI" as specified in philosophy

In 1980, philosopher John Searle created the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese room argument. [128] He proposed a difference in between two hypotheses about expert system: [f]
Strong AI hypothesis: A synthetic intelligence system can have "a mind" and "consciousness". Weak AI hypothesis: An artificial intelligence system can (just) act like it thinks and has a mind and awareness.
The first one he called "strong" since it makes a stronger statement: it presumes something unique has taken place to the machine that exceeds those capabilities that we can evaluate. The behaviour of a "weak AI" device would be exactly identical to a "strong AI" maker, however the latter would likewise have subjective mindful experience. This use is likewise common in scholastic AI research study and books. [129]
In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil use the term "strong AI" to suggest "human level synthetic basic intelligence". [102] This is not the like Searle's strong AI, unless it is presumed that awareness is necessary for human-level AGI. Academic thinkers such as Searle do not think that holds true, and to most artificial intelligence researchers 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 don't care if you call it genuine or a simulation." [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no need to understand if it actually has mind - certainly, there would be no way to tell. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is equivalent to the declaration "artificial general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for approved, and don't care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research study, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have various meanings, and some elements play substantial roles in sci-fi and the principles of expert system:

Sentience (or "remarkable consciousness"): The capability to "feel" perceptions or feelings subjectively, instead of the ability to reason about perceptions. Some theorists, such as David Chalmers, use the term "consciousness" to refer specifically to incredible consciousness, which is roughly equivalent to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience develops is known as the difficult problem of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel discussed in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be conscious. If we are not conscious, then it doesn't seem like anything. Nagel utilizes the example of a bat: we can smartly ask "what does it feel like to be a bat?" However, we are not likely to ask "what does it feel like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat appears to be mindful (i.e., has consciousness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually achieved sentience, though this claim was commonly disputed by other professionals. [135]
Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a separate person, especially to be purposely conscious of one's own thoughts. This is opposed to simply being the "topic of one's believed"-an operating system or debugger is able to be "conscious of itself" (that is, to represent itself in the exact same way it represents whatever else)-but this is not what people normally suggest when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]
These characteristics have an ethical measurement. AI sentience would give increase to issues of well-being and legal protection, similarly to animals. [136] Other elements of consciousness associated to cognitive capabilities are likewise relevant to the concept of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to incorporate advanced AI with existing legal and social structures is an emerging issue. [138]
Benefits

AGI could have a variety of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI might assist reduce various issues on the planet such as hunger, hardship and illness. [139]
AGI could enhance productivity and performance in many jobs. For instance, in public health, AGI could accelerate medical research, especially against cancer. [140] It could take care of the elderly, [141] and democratize access to fast, premium medical diagnostics. It might use fun, inexpensive and customized education. [141] The need to work to subsist might end up being outdated if the wealth produced is effectively redistributed. [141] [142] This likewise raises the concern of the location of human beings in a drastically automated society.

AGI might likewise assist to make reasonable choices, and to expect and avoid disasters. It might also help to enjoy the advantages of potentially catastrophic technologies such as nanotechnology or environment engineering, while preventing the associated risks. [143] If an AGI's main goal is to prevent existential catastrophes such as human termination (which might be hard if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being true), [144] it could take measures to considerably reduce the risks [143] while minimizing the impact of these steps on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential dangers

AGI may represent numerous types of existential risk, which are risks that threaten "the premature extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or the long-term and drastic damage of its potential for preferable future advancement". [145] The risk of human extinction from AGI has actually been the topic of lots of debates, but there is likewise the possibility that the advancement of AGI would cause a completely flawed future. Notably, it could be utilized to spread and maintain the set of values of whoever develops it. If humanity still has ethical blind spots comparable to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, preventing moral progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI could help with mass security and indoctrination, which might be utilized to develop a stable repressive around the world totalitarian routine. [147] [148] There is likewise a risk for the machines themselves. If makers that are sentient or otherwise deserving of ethical factor to consider are mass created in the future, participating in a civilizational course that forever ignores their welfare and interests could be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI might improve humankind's future and help in reducing other existential dangers, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for archmageriseswiki.com proceeding with due care", not for "deserting AI". [147]
Risk of loss of control and human extinction

The thesis that AI presents an existential risk for humans, which this risk needs more attention, is controversial 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 prevalent indifference:

So, facing possible futures of incalculable advantages and dangers, the professionals are certainly doing whatever possible to make sure the best result, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message saying, 'We'll arrive in a couple of years,' 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 occurring with AI. [153]
The possible fate of humanity has sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The comparison mentions that greater intelligence enabled mankind to dominate gorillas, which are now vulnerable in ways that they might not have prepared for. As an outcome, the gorilla has actually ended up being a threatened species, not out of malice, however merely as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]
The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to dominate humanity and that we must take care not to anthropomorphize them and translate their intents as we would for human beings. He said that individuals won't be "smart enough to create super-intelligent makers, yet ridiculously foolish to the point of providing it moronic goals with no safeguards". [155] On the other side, the concept of crucial convergence recommends that almost whatever their objectives, smart agents will have factors to try to make it through and get more power as intermediary actions to attaining these objectives. Which this does not require having feelings. [156]
Many scholars who are worried about existential danger supporter for more research study into fixing the "control problem" to respond to the question: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers execute to maximise the likelihood that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, rather than harmful, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is made complex by the AI arms race (which might lead to a race to the bottom of security preventative measures in order to launch items before rivals), [159] and making use of AI in weapon systems. [160]
The thesis that AI can present existential risk likewise has critics. Skeptics usually say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI distract from other concerns related to current AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for lots of people outside of the technology industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are already perceived as though they were AGI, leading to additional misconception and fear. [162]
Skeptics in some cases charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an irrational belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an unreasonable belief in a supreme God. [163] Some researchers believe that the interaction campaigns on AI existential danger by specific AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) may be an at attempt at regulatory capture and to inflate interest in their items. [164] [165]
In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, in addition to other industry leaders and researchers, issued a joint statement asserting that "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI ought to be an international priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]
Mass unemployment

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

According to Stephen Hawking, the outcome of automation on the quality of life will depend upon how the wealth will be rearranged: [142]
Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or many people can wind up miserably poor if the machine-owners effectively lobby versus wealth redistribution. Up until now, the trend seems to be towards the 2nd alternative, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality

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

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities similar to those of the animal or human brain AI impact AI security - Research location on making AI safe and useful AI alignment - AI conformance to the designated objective A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža Expert system Automated artificial intelligence - Process of automating the application of artificial intelligence BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research initiative announced by the Obama administration China Brain Project Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre General game playing - Ability of artificial intelligence to play various video games Generative synthetic intelligence - AI system capable of generating material in response to prompts Human Brain Project - Scientific research task Intelligence amplification - Use of infotech to enhance human intelligence (IA). Machine ethics - Moral behaviours of manufactured machines. Moravec's paradox. Multi-task knowing - Solving multiple device learning tasks at the very same time. Neural scaling law - Statistical law in maker knowing. Outline of expert system - Overview of and topical guide to synthetic intelligence. Transhumanism - Philosophical motion. Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or form of synthetic intelligence. Transfer learning - Artificial intelligence method. Loebner Prize - Annual AI competition. Hardware for artificial intelligence - Hardware specially developed 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 meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the post Chinese room. ^ AI creator John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet characterize in general what type of computational treatments we want to call smart. " [26] (For a discussion of some definitions of intelligence used by synthetic intelligence researchers, see viewpoint of expert system.). ^ The Lighthill report particularly slammed AI's "grand objectives" and led the taking apart of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became figured out to fund only "mission-oriented direct research study, rather than fundamental 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 creators of brand-new basic formalisms would express their hopes in a more secured type than has actually sometimes been the case." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would approximately represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in regards to MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented. ^ As defined in a standard AI book: "The assertion that machines could perhaps act smartly (or, possibly better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that machines that do so are really thinking (as opposed to 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 synthetic narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is created to perform a single job. ^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to guarantee that synthetic basic intelligence benefits all of humankind. ^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's new objective is creating synthetic basic intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to construct 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 tasks were identified as being active in 2020. ^ a b c "AI timelines: What do professionals in artificial intelligence 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 Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023. ^ "AI leader Geoffrey Hinton stops Google and code.snapstream.com alerts of danger ahead". The New York City Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is hard 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 try outs GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 reveals sparks of AGI. ^ Butler, Octavia E. (1993 ). Parable of the Sower. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4466-7550-5. All that you touch you change. All that you change modifications you. ^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming. ^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Artificial Intelligence". The New York Times. The genuine threat is not AI itself however the method we deploy it. ^ "Impressed by expert system? Experts say AGI is following, and it has 'existential' threats". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might position existential threats to humankind. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The very first superintelligence will be the last innovation that humankind needs to make. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global top priority. ^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI specialists caution of threat 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 devices that can outthink us in basic ways. ^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not provide an existential danger". Medium. There is no reason to fear AI as an existential threat. ^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260. ^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the original on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil explains strong AI as "device intelligence with the complete 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. ^ "Artificial intelligence is changing our world - it is on all of us to make certain that it works out". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023. ^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to attaining AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat. ^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007. ^ This list of smart characteristics is based on the topics covered by major 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 forms the method we think: a brand-new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The concept of proficiency". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The concept 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 happens when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024. ^ a b Turing 1950. ^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1. ^ "Eugene Goostman is a real boy - the Turing Test says so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ "Scientists challenge whether computer '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 examination to AP Biology. Here's a list of challenging examinations both AI versions have passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Artificial Intelligence Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can 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 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 measure human-like intelligence". Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). "Mustafa Suleyman: My brand-new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "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 original on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".). ^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Specifying Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). 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 Artificial Intelligence. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50. ^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). "Expert System, 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 ), priced quote 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 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 worry 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 original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019. ^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20 ^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300. ^ Gubrud 1997 ^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer 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 coined the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the initial on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., by means of Life 3.0: 'The term "AGI" was popularized by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel' ^ Wang & Goertzel 2007 ^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summer 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 limits of device intelligence: Despite development in maker intelligence, synthetic general intelligence is still a significant obstacle". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL] ^ "Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing "Sparks" of AGI". Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023. ^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). "The Singularity Isn't Near". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014. ^ Winfield, Alan. "Expert system will not develop into a Frankenstein's beast". The Guardian. Archived from the 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 expert system 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 expert system bring us utopia or destruction?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016. ^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future progress in expert system: A survey of expert viewpoint. In Fundamental concerns of synthetic intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham. ^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, edited by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia ^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023. ^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023. ^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The creativity of makers: AI takes the Torrance Test". Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185. ^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema. ^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). "Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024". Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024. ^ "Introducing OpenAI o1-preview". OpenAI. 12 September 2024. ^ Knight, Will. "OpenAI Announces a 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 artificial general intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture". Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the 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 site). 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 two times as clever as Siri - but a six-year-old beats both] (in German). Archived from the original on 3 January 2019. Retrieved 2 January 2019. ^ Grossman, Gary (3 September 2020). "We're going into the AI twilight zone between narrow and basic AI". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020. Certainly, too, there are those who claim we are already seeing an early example of an AGI system in the recently announced GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. ... So is GPT-3 the first example of an AGI system? This is debatable, but the agreement is that it is not AGI. ... If absolutely nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a happy medium in between narrow and general AI. ^ Quach, Katyanna. "A designer constructed an AI chatbot utilizing GPT-3 that assisted a man 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 perform over 600 tasks, from playing games to controlling robots", TechCrunch, archived from the original on 16 June 2022, retrieved 12 June 2022. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (22 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL] ^ Metz, Cade (1 May 2023). "' The Godfather of A.I.' Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ Bove, Tristan. "A.I. could rival human intelligence in 'just a few years,' says CEO of Google's primary A.I. research lab". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024. ^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO states AI could pass human tests in five years". Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead". ^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). "Why everyone seems to disagree on how to specify Artificial General Intelligence". Fast Company. ^ Nosta, John (5 January 2024). "The Accelerating Path to Artificial General Intelligence". Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 March 2024. ^ Hickey, Alex. "Whole Brain Emulation: A Huge Step for Neuroscience". Tech Brew. Retrieved 8 November 2023. ^ Sandberg & Boström 2008. ^ Drachman 2005. ^ a b Russell & Norvig 2003. ^ Moravec 1988, p. 61. ^ Moravec 1998. ^ Holmgaard Mersh, Amalie (15 September 2023). "Decade-long European research study task maps the human brain". euractiv. ^ Swaminathan, Nikhil (January-February 2011). "Glia-the other brain cells". Discover. Archived from the initial on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014. ^ de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser 2008. A broad variety of views in existing research study, all of which need grounding to some degree ^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How submitting our minds to a computer may become 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 (priced estimate in" Encyclopedia.com"),. MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (quoted 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 way it does. ^ Chalmers, David J. (9 August 2023). "Could a Big Language Model Be Conscious?". Boston Review. ^ Seth, Anil. "Consciousness". New Scientist. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Nagel 1974. ^ "The Google engineer who believes the business's AI has 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 cost outweigh advantages?". 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "How we can Benefit from Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) - Unite.AI". www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. "What Will Our Society Appear Like When 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, threats, techniques (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, UK; New York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Piper, Kelsey (19 November 2018). "How technological progress is making it likelier than ever that human beings will damage ourselves". Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). "Climate change an 'existential security risk' to Australia, Senate inquiry states". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023. ^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York City, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6. ^ a b Ord, Toby (2020 ). "Chapter 5: Future Risks, Unaligned Expert System". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9. ^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious". Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). "Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ a b "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence takes a look at the implications of artificial intelligence - 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 fascinating Facebook dispute in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the dangers of strong AI". The fascinating Facebook dispute in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the threats of strong AI (in French). Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Will Artificial Intelligence Doom The Human Race Within The Next 100 Years?". HuffPost. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sotala, Kaj; Yampolskiy, Roman V. (19 December 2014). "Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a 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 dangers spiralling out of control, report warns". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). "Experts disagree over hazard posed however synthetic intelligence can not be disregarded". 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 stoking worries over AI, warn scientists". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain creator states huge tech is lying about AI termination threat". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Eloundou, Tyna; Manning, Sam; Mishkin, Pamela; Rock, Daniel (17 March 2023). "GPTs are GPTs: An early take a look at the labor market effect potential of big language designs". OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). "OpenAI states 80% of workers might see their jobs affected by AI. These are the tasks most affected". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk states we need universal standard income due to the fact that '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), "Artificial intelligence and the future", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007. Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous Search for Expert System. New York City, NY: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-02997-3. Darrach, Brad (20 November 1970), "Meet Shakey, the First Electronic Person", Life Magazine, pp. 58-68. Drachman, D. (2005 ), "Do we have brain to spare?", Neurology, 64 (12 ): 2004-2005, doi:10.1212/ 01. WNL.0000166914.38327. BB, PMID 15985565, S2CID 38482114. Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983 ), The Fifth Generation: Expert System and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World, Michael Joseph, ISBN 978-0-7181-2401-4. Goertzel, Ben; Pennachin, Cassio, eds. (2006 ), Artificial General Intelligence (PDF), Springer, ISBN 978-3-5402-3733-4, archived from the initial (PDF) on 20 March 2013. Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), " basic intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a response to Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott's critique of Kurzweil", Expert system, vol. 171, no. 18, Special Review Issue, pp. 1161-1173, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.011, archived from the original on 7 January 2016, recovered 1 April 2009. Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), "Nanotechnology and International Security", Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the original on 29 May 2011, recovered 7 May 2011. Howe, J. (November 1994), Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University: a Point of view, archived from the original on 17 August 2007, retrieved 30 August 2007. Johnson, Mark (1987 ), The body in the mind, Chicago, ISBN 978-0-2264-0317-5. Kurzweil, Ray (2005 ), The Singularity is Near, Viking Press. Lighthill, Professor Sir James (1973 ), "Expert System: A General Survey", Expert System: a paper seminar, Science Research Council. Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Expert System: 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 Expert system?. Stanford University. The supreme effort is to make computer programs that can fix issues and attain goals worldwide along with human beings. Moravec, Hans (1988 ), Mind Children, Harvard University Press Moravec, Hans (1998 ), "When will hardware match the human brain?", Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 1, archived from the original on 15 June 2006, obtained 23 June 2006 Nagel (1974 ), "What Is it Like to Be a Bat" (PDF), Philosophical Review, 83 (4 ): 435-50, doi:10.2307/ 2183914, JSTOR 2183914, archived (PDF) from the initial on 16 October 2011, retrieved 7 November 2009 Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1976 ). "Computer Technology as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search". Communications of the ACM. 19 (3 ): 113-126. doi:10.1145/ 360018.360022. Nilsson, Nils (1998 ), Expert System: A New Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, ISBN 978-1-5586-0467-4 NRC (1999 ), "Developments in 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 Rational Approach, New York: Oxford University Press, archived from the initial on 25 July 2009, retrieved 6 December 2007 Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003 ), Expert System: A Modern Approach (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, recovered 5 April 2009 Searle, John (1980 ), "Minds, Brains and Programs" (PDF), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (3 ): 417-457, doi:10.1017/ S0140525X00005756, S2CID 55303721, archived (PDF) from the initial on 17 March 2019, 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 initial on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 - via ResearchGate.
Further reading

Aleksander, Igor (1996 ), Impossible Minds, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 978-1-8609-4036-1 Azevedo FA, Carvalho LR, Grinberg LT, Farfel J, et al. (April 2009), "Equal 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 initial on 18 February 2021, obtained 4 September 2013 - through ResearchGate Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Expert System Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the initial on 23 July 2014, retrieved 31 August 2012 Cukier, Kenneth, "Ready for Robots? How to Consider the Future of AI", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 4 (July/August 2019), pp. 192-98. George Dyson, historian of computing, composes (in what might be called "Dyson's Law") that "Any system simple 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 researcher Alex Pentland writes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead basic dumb. They work, however they work by strength." (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 Choice, Princeton University Press, 2023, 333 pp.), The New York City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. "Agency is what identifies us from machines. For biological animals, reason and function originate from acting worldwide and experiencing the repercussions. Expert systems - disembodied, strangers to blood, sweat, and tears - have no occasion 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" (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: 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 intend to get rich from AI are going to have the interests of the rest people close at heart,' ... writes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't depend on federal governments driven by campaign financing contributions [from tech companies] to push back.' ... Marcus information the needs that citizens ought to make of their federal governments and the tech business. They include transparency on how AI systems work; settlement for people if their information [are] utilized to train LLMs (large language design) s and the right to grant this usage; and the ability to hold tech business responsible for the harms they cause by removing Section 230, imposing money penalites, and passing stricter product liability laws ... Marcus also recommends ... that a new, AI-specific federal company, akin to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, may supply the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law professor Chinmayi Sharma ... suggests ... establish [ing] an expert licensing regime for engineers that would operate in a similar way to medical licenses, malpractice fits, and the Hippocratic oath in medication. 'What if, like physicians,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers also pledged 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 stymied human beings for decades, exposes the constraints of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder secret competitors has actually revealed that although NLP (natural-language processing) models are capable of amazing accomplishments, their capabilities are really much restricted by the amount of context they get. This [...] could cause [problems] for researchers who want to utilize them to do things such as analyze ancient languages. In many cases, there are couple of historic records on long-gone civilizations to work as training data for such a function." (p. 82.). Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: People now use A.I. to produce fake videos identical from real ones. Just how much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we mean realistic videos produced using synthetic intelligence that actually deceive people, then they barely exist. The phonies aren't deep, and the deeps aren't phony. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in general, operating in our media as counterfeited proof. Their function much better resembles that of cartoons, especially smutty ones." (p. 59.). - Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We must prevent 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 conversation?", The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16. Marcus, Gary, "Artificial Confidence: Even the most recent, buzziest systems of synthetic general intelligence are stymmied by the usual problems", Scientific American, vol. 327, no. 4 (October 2022), pp. 42-45. McCarthy, John (October 2007), "From here to human-level AI", Expert System, 171 (18 ): 1174-1182, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.009. McCorduck, Pamela (2004 ), Machines Who Think (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, retrieved 29 September 2007. Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1963 ), "GPS: A Program that Simulates Human Thought", in Feigenbaum, E. A.; Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, New York: McGraw-Hill. Omohundro, Steve (2008 ), The Nature of Self-Improving Expert system, provided and dispersed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California. Press, Eyal, "In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition technology lead cops to overlook inconsistent proof?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26. Roivainen, Eka, "AI's IQ: bahnreise-wiki.de ChatGPT aced a [standard intelligence] test however showed that intelligence can not be measured by IQ alone", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 1 (July/August 2023), p. 7. "Despite its high IQ, yewiki.org ChatGPT stops working at tasks that need genuine humanlike reasoning or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT seemed not able to reason rationally and tried to count on its vast database of ... facts derived from online texts. " - Scharre, Paul, "Killer Apps: wiki.die-karte-bitte.de 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 however undependable. Rules-based systems can not deal with scenarios their programmers did not prepare for. Learning systems are limited by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have currently led to disaster. Advanced auto-pilot functions in vehicles, although they carry out well in some situations, have driven automobiles without cautioning into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked automobiles. In the wrong circumstance, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an instant. When an opponent is attempting to manipulate and hack an AI system, the threats are even 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 but count on the timelelss human tendency to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.). Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.