GitLab

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

Creating AGI is a primary goal of AI research study and of companies such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 study determined 72 active AGI research and development tasks throughout 37 nations. [4]
The timeline for attaining AGI stays a topic of continuous dispute amongst researchers and professionals. As of 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or decades; others preserve it may take a century or longer; a minority believe it may never ever be achieved; and another minority declares that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has actually revealed concerns about the quick development towards AGI, recommending it might be achieved earlier than many anticipate. [7]
There is argument on the exact definition of AGI and relating to whether modern big language designs (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early types of AGI. [8] AGI is a common topic in sci-fi and futures studies. [9] [10]
Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential danger. [11] [12] [13] Many specialists on AI have actually mentioned that mitigating the threat of human termination posed by AGI should be a worldwide concern. [14] [15] Others find the advancement of AGI to be too remote to present such a threat. [16] [17]
Terminology

AGI is also referred to as strong AI, [18] [19] complete AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level smart AI, or general smart action. [21]
Some academic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer system programs that experience life or consciousness. [a] In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) has the ability to resolve one specific problem however lacks basic cognitive abilities. [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 very same sense as human beings. [a]
Related ideas include artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical kind of AGI that is far more generally intelligent than people, [23] while the notion of transformative AI connects to AI having a large influence on society, for example, comparable to the farming or industrial transformation. [24]
A framework for classifying AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They specify five levels of AGI: emerging, qualified, expert, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a competent AGI is defined as an AI that outperforms 50% of competent adults in a wide variety of non-physical tasks, wiki.fablabbcn.org and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is likewise specified however with a limit of 100%. They think about large language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances 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 popular meanings, and some researchers disagree with the more popular approaches. [b]
Intelligence traits

Researchers normally hold that intelligence is needed to do all of the following: [27]
reason, usage technique, fix puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability represent knowledge, consisting of sound judgment understanding strategy find out

• interact in natural language
• if essential, incorporate these abilities in conclusion of any offered goal

Many interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) consider additional traits such as imagination (the capability to form unique mental images and ideas) [28] and autonomy. [29]
Computer-based systems that show numerous of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated reasoning, choice support group, robotic, evolutionary calculation, smart representative). There is argument about whether modern AI systems possess them to an adequate degree.

Physical traits

Other capabilities are thought about preferable in intelligent systems, as they may impact intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: [30]
- the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and - the ability to act (e.g. relocation and control things, modification location to check out, and so on).
This consists of the ability to find and react to hazard. [31]
Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc) and the capability to act (e.g. relocation and control items, change area to check out, etc) can be preferable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical abilities are not strictly required for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language models (LLMs) might already be or end up being AGI. Even from a less optimistic viewpoint on LLMs, there is no company requirement for an AGI to have a human-like kind; being a silicon-based computational system suffices, supplied it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This analysis aligns with the understanding that AGI has never been proscribed a particular physical embodiment and hence does not demand a capability for locomotion or conventional "eyes and ears". [32]
Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests suggested to validate human-level AGI have actually been thought about, including: [33] [34]
The idea of the test is that the machine has to try and pretend to be a male, by addressing concerns put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is reasonably convincing. A significant part of a jury, who should not be professional about makers, must be taken in by the pretence. [37]
AI-complete issues

A problem is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is thought that in order to resolve it, one would need to execute AGI, because the solution is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]
There are numerous issues that have been conjectured to require basic intelligence to resolve in addition to human beings. Examples include computer system vision, natural language understanding, and handling unforeseen situations while solving any real-world issue. [48] Even a particular job like translation needs a device to read and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (reason), understand the context (understanding), and consistently replicate the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these issues require to be fixed simultaneously in order to reach human-level device efficiency.

However, much of these tasks can now be carried out by modern big language designs. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has actually reached human-level efficiency on lots of criteria for checking out understanding and visual reasoning. [49]
History

Classical AI

Modern AI research began in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI researchers were persuaded that artificial general intelligence was possible and that it would exist in simply a few years. [51] AI pioneer 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 produce by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a specialist [53] on the task of making HAL 9000 as sensible as possible according to the agreement predictions of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of creating 'artificial intelligence' will substantially be fixed". [54]
Several classical AI jobs, 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 became apparent that scientists had actually grossly underestimated the difficulty of the task. Funding companies ended up being skeptical of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce useful "used AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project revived interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that included AGI objectives like "carry on a casual conversation". [58] In action to this and the success of specialist systems, both industry and federal government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI spectacularly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever satisfied. [60] For the 2nd time in 20 years, AI researchers who forecasted the impending accomplishment of AGI had actually been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a credibility for making vain pledges. They ended up being reluctant to make predictions at all [d] and prevented mention of "human level" expert system for worry of being identified "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]
Narrow AI research study

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI attained business success and scholastic respectability by concentrating on particular sub-problems where AI can produce proven results and industrial applications, such as speech acknowledgment and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now used extensively throughout the innovation market, and research study in this vein is greatly moneyed in both academic community and industry. Since 2018 [update], advancement in this field was considered an emerging pattern, and a mature stage was anticipated to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]
At the millenium, lots of mainstream AI researchers [65] hoped that strong AI might be established by combining programs that solve numerous sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:

I am positive that this bottom-up route to synthetic intelligence will one day meet the standard top-down route more than half method, prepared to offer the real-world competence and the commonsense knowledge that has actually been so frustratingly evasive in thinking programs. Fully smart devices will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven unifying the 2 efforts. [65]
However, even at the time, this was challenged. For instance, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the sign grounding hypothesis by mentioning:

The expectation has actually often been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way satisfy "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper are valid, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is really just one practical 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 need to even try to reach such a level, because it looks as if getting there would just amount to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic significances (thus simply reducing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]
Modern artificial basic intelligence research

The term "artificial general 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 ability to satisfy goals in a large range of environments". [68] This kind of AGI, defined by the capability to maximise a mathematical meaning of intelligence instead of show human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal synthetic intelligence. [70]
The term AGI was re-introduced and promoted by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research study activity in 2006 was explained by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and initial results". The very first summer school in AGI was organized in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The first university course was offered in 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.

Since 2023 [upgrade], a little number of computer researchers are active in AGI research study, and lots of 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 permitting AI to constantly find out and innovate like humans do.

Feasibility

Since 2023, the advancement and possible accomplishment of AGI remains a subject of extreme argument within the AI neighborhood. While conventional consensus held that AGI was a distant objective, current developments have led some scientists and industry figures to claim that early forms of AGI might currently exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon hypothesized in 1965 that "makers 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 since it would require "unforeseeable and basically unpredictable breakthroughs" and a "clinically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf in between modern computing and human-level expert system is as wide as the gulf between current space flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]
A further challenge is the lack of clearness in specifying what intelligence requires. Does it need awareness? Must it display the capability to set goals in addition to pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are facilities such as planning, thinking, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence need clearly replicating the brain and its specific professors? Does it require feelings? [81]
Most AI scientists believe strong AI can be accomplished in the future, but some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of attaining strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who believe human-level AI will be achieved, however that today level of progress is such that a date can not properly be anticipated. [84] AI experts' views on the expediency of AGI wax and wane. Four surveys performed in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the typical estimate among specialists for when they would be 50% confident AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the professionals, 16.5% answered with "never ever" when asked the same question however with a 90% confidence instead. [85] [86] Further current AGI development factors to consider can be discovered above Tests for verifying human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute discovered that "over [a] 60-year amount of time there is a strong bias towards anticipating the arrival of human-level AI as in between 15 and 25 years from the time the forecast was made". They evaluated 95 predictions made in between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]
In 2023, Microsoft scientists released a comprehensive evaluation of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, our company believe that it could fairly be deemed an early (yet still incomplete) variation of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another research study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 surpasses 99% of people on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]
Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig wrote in 2023 that a substantial level of basic intelligence has actually currently been attained with frontier designs. They composed that reluctance to this view originates from 4 primary factors: a "healthy suspicion about metrics for AGI", an "ideological commitment to alternative AI theories or techniques", a "devotion to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "issue about the economic implications of AGI". [91]
2023 also marked the development of large multimodal designs (large language models capable of processing or producing several modalities such as text, audio, and images). [92]
In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the first of a series of designs that "invest more time believing before they react". According to Mira Murati, this capability to think before responding represents a brand-new, extra paradigm. It improves design outputs by investing more computing power when creating the response, whereas the design scaling paradigm enhances outputs by increasing the model size, training information and training compute power. [93] [94]
An OpenAI worker, Vahid Kazemi, claimed in 2024 that the business had actually achieved AGI, mentioning, "In my opinion, we have already 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 job", it is "better than the majority of human beings at a lot of tasks." He also resolved criticisms that large language designs (LLMs) merely follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing process to the clinical method of observing, assuming, and validating. These statements have sparked debate, as they count on a broad and non-traditional definition of AGI-traditionally understood as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's designs demonstrate remarkable flexibility, they may not totally meet this standard. Notably, Kazemi's comments came quickly after OpenAI eliminated "AGI" from the terms of its partnership with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the company's strategic intentions. [95]
Timescales

Progress in expert system has traditionally gone through durations of quick progress separated by periods when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were fundamental advances in hardware, software or both to develop space for more progress. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware readily available in the twentieth century was not sufficient to execute deep learning, which needs great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]
In the intro to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that estimates of the time needed before a genuinely flexible AGI is developed differ from ten years to over a century. Since 2007 [update], the consensus in the AGI research neighborhood seemed to be that the timeline gone over by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. in between 2015 and 2045) was possible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have offered a vast array of viewpoints on whether development will be this fast. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such viewpoints found a predisposition towards forecasting that the beginning 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 specialist or non-expert. [104]
In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton developed a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competition with a top-5 test mistake rate of 15.3%, substantially better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the standard method used a weighted sum of scores from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered as the preliminary ground-breaker of the present deep knowing wave. [105]
In 2017, scientists Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu carried out intelligence tests on openly available and freely 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 approximately to a six-year-old kid in very first grade. An adult pertains to about 100 typically. Similar tests were performed in 2014, with the IQ score reaching a maximum value of 27. [106] [107]
In 2020, OpenAI developed GPT-3, a language design capable of carrying out lots of diverse tasks without specific training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat article, while there is consensus that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is thought about by some to be too advanced to be classified as a narrow AI system. [108]
In the very same year, Jason Rohrer utilized his GPT-3 account to establish a chatbot, and offered a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI asked for modifications to the chatbot to adhere to their safety guidelines; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]
In 2022, DeepMind developed Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of carrying out more than 600 various tasks. [110]
In 2023, Microsoft Research released a study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it showed more basic intelligence than previous AI models and demonstrated human-level performance in jobs covering numerous domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study sparked an argument on whether GPT-4 might be thought about an early, incomplete version of synthetic general intelligence, emphasizing the requirement for further exploration and assessment of such systems. [111]
In 2023, the AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton stated that: [112]
The concept that this stuff could actually get smarter than individuals - a couple of individuals believed that, [...] But many individuals thought it was method off. And I thought it was method off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years and even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis likewise said that "The development in the last couple of years has been quite incredible", and that he sees no reason it would decrease, expecting AGI within a decade or perhaps a couple of years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, stated his expectation that within 5 years, AI would be capable of passing any test at least as well as human beings. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI staff member, estimated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably possible". [115]
Whole brain emulation

While the development of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is thought about the most promising path to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can function as an alternative method. With whole brain simulation, a brain design is constructed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and then copying and mimicing it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation design should be sufficiently devoted to the initial, so that it behaves in almost the very same way as the initial brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is discussed in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study purposes. It has been gone over in artificial intelligence research [103] as a technique to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that might deliver the needed detailed understanding are enhancing rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] predicts that a map of enough quality will appear on a comparable timescale to the computing power needed to emulate it.

Early approximates

For low-level brain simulation, a really effective cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be needed, offered the enormous quantity of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells has on average 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other nerve cells. The brain of a three-year-old kid has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number decreases with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A price quote of the brain's processing power, based on an easy switch design for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]
In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at numerous estimates for the hardware needed to equal the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 computations per second (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "calculation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a measure utilized to rate current supercomputers - then 1016 "calculations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, achieved in 2011, while 1018 was accomplished in 2022.) He utilized this figure to anticipate the essential hardware would be available sometime between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid development in computer system power at the time of composing continued.

Current research study

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded initiative active from 2013 to 2023, has developed an especially comprehensive and publicly available atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, researchers from Duke University performed a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.

Criticisms of simulation-based approaches

The synthetic neuron design presumed by Kurzweil and used in lots of current synthetic neural network implementations is easy compared with biological nerve cells. A brain simulation would likely have to record the detailed cellular behaviour of biological neurons, currently comprehended just in broad outline. The overhead presented by complete modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical details of neural behaviour (especially on a molecular scale) would need computational powers several orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's price quote. In addition, the quotes do not represent glial cells, which are understood to play a role in cognitive processes. [125]
An essential criticism of the simulated brain approach originates from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is an essential element of human intelligence and is necessary to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is correct, any completely functional brain model will require to encompass more than just the nerve cells (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an option, however it is unknown whether this would be enough.

Philosophical point of view

"Strong AI" as specified in philosophy

In 1980, philosopher John Searle created the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese space argument. [128] He proposed a difference in between two hypotheses about expert system: [f]
Strong AI hypothesis: An expert system system can have "a mind" and "consciousness". Weak AI hypothesis: An artificial intelligence system can (only) imitate it thinks and has a mind and awareness.
The first one he called "strong" since it makes a stronger declaration: it presumes something special has taken place to the device that exceeds those capabilities that we can test. The behaviour of a "weak AI" machine would be exactly similar to a "strong AI" machine, but the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This use is likewise common in academic AI research and books. [129]
In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil utilize the term "strong AI" to suggest "human level artificial basic intelligence". [102] This is not the like Searle's strong AI, unless it is presumed that awareness is essential for human-level AGI. Academic philosophers such as Searle do not think that is the case, and to most synthetic intelligence scientists the concern is out-of-scope. [130]
Mainstream AI is most thinking about how a program acts. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they don't care if you call it real or a simulation." [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no requirement to understand if it in fact has mind - undoubtedly, there would be no other way to tell. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is equivalent to the declaration "artificial basic intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for approved, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 different things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have different significances, and some aspects play substantial functions in science fiction and the principles of expert system:

Sentience (or "incredible consciousness"): The ability to "feel" understandings or feelings subjectively, rather than the ability to factor about perceptions. Some thinkers, such as David Chalmers, use the term "awareness" to refer solely to phenomenal awareness, which is roughly equivalent to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience occurs is referred to as the hard problem of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel explained in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be conscious. If we are not conscious, then it does not feel like anything. Nagel uses the example of a bat: we can sensibly ask "what does it seem like to be a bat?" However, we are unlikely to ask "what does it feel like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat seems conscious (i.e., has awareness) but a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had achieved sentience, though this claim was commonly challenged by other experts. [135]
Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a separate person, specifically to be consciously knowledgeable about one's own thoughts. This is opposed to simply being the "subject of one's believed"-an os or debugger has the ability to be "familiar with itself" (that is, to represent itself in the very same method it represents everything else)-but this is not what individuals normally suggest when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]
These characteristics have an ethical dimension. AI life would provide rise to issues of welfare and legal protection, similarly to animals. [136] Other elements of consciousness related to cognitive abilities are also pertinent to the concept of AI rights. [137] Finding out how to incorporate innovative AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emergent problem. [138]
Benefits

AGI might have a wide range of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI could help mitigate different problems on the planet such as hunger, hardship and illness. [139]
AGI could enhance productivity and effectiveness in most tasks. For example, in public health, AGI might accelerate medical research, especially versus cancer. [140] It could look after the senior, [141] and equalize access to quick, top quality medical diagnostics. It might provide fun, low-cost and personalized education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist might become outdated if the wealth produced is correctly rearranged. [141] [142] This likewise raises the concern of the place of human beings in a significantly automated society.

AGI might also assist to make rational decisions, and to expect and prevent catastrophes. It might also assist to enjoy the advantages of possibly disastrous technologies such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while avoiding the associated dangers. [143] If an AGI's primary objective is to prevent existential catastrophes such as human termination (which might be hard if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being real), [144] it could take procedures to considerably reduce the threats [143] while reducing the impact of these measures on our lifestyle.

Risks

Existential dangers

AGI might represent multiple kinds of existential threat, which are dangers that threaten "the premature termination of Earth-originating smart life or the irreversible and drastic destruction of its capacity for preferable future advancement". [145] The threat of human termination from AGI has been the topic of many disputes, however there is likewise the possibility that the development of AGI would result in a completely problematic future. Notably, it could be used to spread and protect the set of worths of whoever establishes it. If humankind still has moral blind areas comparable to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, preventing moral progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI might facilitate mass security and brainwashing, which might be used to produce a stable repressive worldwide totalitarian routine. [147] [148] There is also a threat for the makers themselves. If devices that are sentient or otherwise worthy of ethical consideration are mass developed in the future, taking part in a civilizational course that indefinitely disregards their welfare and interests might be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI could improve humankind's future and help in reducing other existential threats, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for proceeding with due care", not for "deserting AI". [147]
Risk of loss of control and human termination

The thesis that AI postures an existential risk for human beings, and that this threat requires more attention, is questionable however has been endorsed in 2023 by lots of public figures, AI scientists and CEOs of AI business such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis and Sam Altman. [151] [152]
In 2014, Stephen Hawking slammed widespread indifference:

So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the specialists are surely doing whatever possible to ensure the very best result, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message saying, 'We'll get here in a few 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 taking place with AI. [153]
The potential fate of mankind has actually sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast states that higher intelligence allowed humanity to dominate gorillas, which are now vulnerable in manner ins which they might not have expected. As an outcome, the gorilla has ended up being an endangered species, not out of malice, but just as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]
The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to control humanity and that we need to be careful not to anthropomorphize them and analyze their intents as we would for humans. He said that individuals will not be "wise enough to develop super-intelligent machines, yet ridiculously stupid to the point of giving it moronic objectives without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the principle of critical convergence suggests that practically whatever their goals, intelligent representatives will have factors to attempt to make it through and obtain more power as intermediary steps to attaining these goals. And that this does not require having feelings. [156]
Many scholars who are concerned about existential danger advocate for more research into resolving the "control issue" to address the question: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers implement to increase the likelihood that their recursively-improving AI would continue to act in a friendly, rather than destructive, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is made complex by the AI arms race (which might cause a race to the bottom of safety preventative measures in order to launch items before competitors), [159] and the usage of AI in weapon systems. [160]
The thesis that AI can position existential danger likewise has critics. Skeptics usually state that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that concerns about AGI distract from other issues related to existing AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder considers that for lots of people beyond the innovation industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are already perceived as though they were AGI, resulting in further misconception and fear. [162]
Skeptics in some cases charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an unreasonable belief in the possibility of superintelligence changing an irrational belief in an omnipotent God. [163] Some scientists believe that the communication projects on AI existential risk by particular AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) may be an at attempt at regulative capture and to inflate interest in their items. [164] [165]
In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, in addition to other market leaders and scientists, released a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the danger of termination from AI must be a global concern along with other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]
Mass joblessness

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

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

Elon Musk considers that the automation of society will require federal governments to embrace a universal basic earnings. [168]
See likewise

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities comparable to those of the animal or human brain AI result AI security - Research location on making AI safe and advantageous AI alignment - AI conformance to the designated goal A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža Expert system Automated artificial intelligence - Process of automating the application of machine knowing 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 expert system to play various games Generative artificial intelligence - AI system efficient in creating content in reaction to triggers Human Brain Project - Scientific research study project Intelligence amplification - Use of details innovation to augment human intelligence (IA). Machine principles - Moral behaviours of manufactured makers. Moravec's paradox. Multi-task learning - Solving numerous machine finding out jobs at the very same time. Neural scaling law - Statistical law in machine knowing. Outline of artificial intelligence - Overview of and topical guide to artificial intelligence. Transhumanism - Philosophical movement. Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or kind of expert system. Transfer knowing - Artificial intelligence technique. Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors. Hardware for expert system - Hardware specifically designed and enhanced for synthetic intelligence. Weak artificial intelligence - Form of expert system.
Notes

^ a b See listed below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the scholastic meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the short article Chinese space. ^ AI creator John McCarthy writes: "we can not yet define in basic what kinds of computational treatments we desire to call smart. " [26] (For a conversation of some definitions of intelligence used by expert system scientists, see philosophy of artificial intelligence.). ^ The Lighthill report specifically criticized AI's "grandiose objectives" and led the dismantling of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA ended up being identified to money just "mission-oriented direct research study, instead of fundamental undirected research". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy writes "it would be an excellent relief to the remainder of the employees in AI if the inventors of brand-new general formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more guarded form than has actually sometimes held true." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is utilized. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly 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 textbook: "The assertion that devices might perhaps act wisely (or, maybe better, act as if they were smart) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that devices that do so are actually 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 mission is to ensure that synthetic basic intelligence benefits all of humanity. ^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's new objective is producing synthetic general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to construct AI that is 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 recognized as being active in 2020. ^ a b c "AI timelines: What do experts in synthetic 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 pioneer Geoffrey Hinton gives up Google and warns of risk 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 stimulates 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 City Times. The genuine danger is not AI itself but the way we release it. ^ "Impressed by artificial intelligence? Experts say AGI is coming next, and it has 'existential' risks". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might present 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 invention that mankind needs to make. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI need to be a worldwide top priority. ^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts warn of risk of termination from AI. ^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York Times. We are far from producing devices that can outthink us in basic ways. ^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not present an existential risk". 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 describes strong AI as "machine 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 use for "human-level" intelligence in the physical symbol system hypothesis. ^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the original on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007. ^ "What is artificial superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023. ^ "Expert system is changing our world - it is on all of us to ensure that it goes well". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023. ^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to achieving AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat. ^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007. ^ This list of smart traits is based on the subjects covered by major AI books, including: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998. ^ Johnson 1987. ^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York City: Academic Press. ^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body shapes the method we believe: a brand-new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The principle of proficiency". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reconsidered: 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 initial on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014. ^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the initial on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019. ^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What 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 genuine kid - the Turing Test says so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ "Scientists challenge whether computer system 'Eugene Goostman' passed Turing test". BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). "People can not identify 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 whatever from the bar test to AP Biology. Here's a list of hard exams both AI variations 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 unreliable. The Winograd Schema is outdated. Coffee is the answer". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder suggested evaluating an AI chatbot's ability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to determine human-like intelligence". Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). "Mustafa Suleyman: My new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Artificial Intelligence" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (Second ed.). New York: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".). ^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Specifying Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Artificial Intelligence, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the 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 estimated in Crevier 1993, p. 109. ^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008. ^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), estimated in Crevier (1993, p. 109). ^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994. ^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment". ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22. ^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see also Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212. ^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). "Reply to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007. ^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). "Behind Artificial Intelligence, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York Times. Archived from the initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer researchers and software application engineers avoided the term synthetic intelligence 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 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 initial 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 promoted by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel' ^ Wang & Goertzel 2007 ^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summer season school: June 22 - July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: systemcheck-wiki.de 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 season trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limitations of maker intelligence: Despite progress in machine intelligence, artificial general intelligence is still a significant difficulty". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early 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. "Artificial intelligence will not turn 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 general 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 damage?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016. ^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future development in expert system: A study of expert opinion. In Fundamental concerns 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 originality of makers: AI takes the Torrance Test". Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185. ^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema. ^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). "Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: morphomics.science 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 initial on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022. ^ Pei, Jing; Deng, Lei; Song, Sen; Zhao, Mingguo; Zhang, Youhui; Wu, Shuang; Wang, Guanrui; Zou, Zhe; Wu, Zhenzhi; He, Wei; Chen, Feng; Deng, Ning; Wu, Si; Wang, Yu; Wu, Yujie (2019 ). "Towards artificial general intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture". Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the original on 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022. ^ Pandey, Mohit; Fernandez, Michael; Gentile, Francesco; Isayev, Olexandr; Tropsha, Alexander; Stern, Abraham C.; Cherkasov, Artem (March 2022). "The transformational function of GPU computing and deep knowing in drug discovery". Nature Machine Intelligence. 4 (3 ): 211-221. doi:10.1038/ s42256-022-00463-x. ISSN 2522-5839. S2CID 252081559. ^ Goertzel & Pennachin 2006. ^ a b c (Kurzweil 2005, p. 260). ^ a b c Goertzel 2007. ^ Grace, Katja (2016 ). "Error in Armstrong and Sotala 2012". AI Impacts (blog site). Archived from the initial on 4 December 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2020. ^ a b Butz, Martin V. (1 March 2021). "Towards Strong AI". KI - Künstliche Intelligenz. 35 (1 ): 91-101. doi:10.1007/ s13218-021-00705-x. ISSN 1610-1987. S2CID 256065190. ^ Liu, Feng; Shi, Yong; Liu, Ying (2017 ). "Intelligence Quotient and Intelligence Grade of Expert System". Annals of Data Science. 4 (2 ): 179-191. arXiv:1709.10242. doi:10.1007/ s40745-017-0109-0. S2CID 37900130. ^ Brien, Jörn (5 October 2017). "Google-KI doppelt so schlau wie Siri" [Google AI is twice as clever as Siri - 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 getting in the AI twilight zone in between narrow and general AI". VentureBeat. Archived from the original 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 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 nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a happy medium in between narrow and basic AI. ^ Quach, Katyanna. "A designer built an AI chatbot using GPT-3 that assisted 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 brand-new AI can carry out over 600 tasks, from playing games to controlling robots", TechCrunch, archived from the original 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 explores GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL] ^ Metz, Cade (1 May 2023). "' The Godfather of A.I.' Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead". The New York City Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ Bove, Tristan. "A.I. might match human intelligence in 'just a couple of years,' states CEO of Google's main A.I. research study laboratory". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024. ^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO says AI might pass human tests in 5 years". Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead". ^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). "Why everybody appears to disagree on how to specify Artificial General Intelligence". Fast Company. ^ Nosta, John (5 January 2024). "The Accelerating Path to Artificial General Intelligence". Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 March 2024. ^ Hickey, Alex. "Whole Brain Emulation: A Giant Step for Neuroscience". Tech Brew. Retrieved 8 November 2023. ^ Sandberg & Boström 2008. ^ Drachman 2005. ^ a b Russell & Norvig 2003. ^ Moravec 1988, p. 61. ^ Moravec 1998. ^ Holmgaard Mersh, Amalie (15 September 2023). "Decade-long European research job 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 variety of views in existing research study, all of which require grounding to some degree ^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How submitting our minds to a computer system may become 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 (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 artificial intelligence for interest by the field about why a program acts the method 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 company's AI has actually come to life". The Washington Post. 11 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Nosta, John (18 December 2023). "Should Artificial Intelligence Have Rights?". Psychology Today. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Akst, Daniel (10 April 2023). "Should Robots With Expert System Have Moral or Legal Rights?". The Wall Street Journal. ^ "Artificial General Intelligence - Do [es] the cost outweigh benefits?". 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 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, risks, methods (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom; New York City, New York, USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Piper, Kelsey (19 November 2018). "How technological progress is making it likelier than ever that human beings will damage ourselves". Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). "Climate alter an 'existential security threat' to Australia, wolvesbaneuo.com Senate query says". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023. ^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6. ^ a b Ord, Toby (2020 ). "Chapter 5: Future Risks, Unaligned Artificial Intelligence". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9. ^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious". Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). "Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ a b "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of expert system - however are we taking AI seriously enough?'". The Independent (UK). Archived from the original on 25 September 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2014. ^ Herger, Mario. "The Gorilla Problem - Enterprise Garage". Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "The remarkable Facebook debate in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI". The fascinating Facebook debate in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the dangers 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 devastating AGI danger: a survey". Physica Scripta. 90 (1 ): 018001. doi:10.1088/ 0031-8949/90/ 1/018001. ISSN 0031-8949. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (First ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Chow, Andrew R.; Perrigo, Billy (16 February 2023). "The AI Arms Race Is On. Start Worrying". TIME. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Tetlow, Gemma (12 January 2017). "AI arms race threats spiralling out of control, report alerts". Financial Times. Archived from the initial on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). "Experts disagree over risk presented however expert system 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, caution researchers". 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 impact capacity of large language designs". OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). "OpenAI says 80% of employees could see their tasks impacted by AI. These are the jobs most impacted". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk says we require universal fundamental earnings because 'in the future, physical work will be an option'". Business Insider. Archived from the initial on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Sources

UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the initial on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021. Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press. Clocksin, William (August 2003), "Expert system and the future", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007. Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous Search for Artificial Intelligence. New York, NY: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-02997-3. Darrach, Brad (20 November 1970), "Meet Shakey, the First Electronic Person", Life Magazine, pp. 58-68. Drachman, D. (2005 ), "Do we have brain to spare?", Neurology, 64 (12 ): 2004-2005, doi:10.1212/ 01. WNL.0000166914.38327. BB, PMID 15985565, S2CID 38482114. Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983 ), The Fifth Generation: Expert System and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World, Michael Joseph, ISBN 978-0-7181-2401-4. Goertzel, Ben; Pennachin, Cassio, eds. (2006 ), Artificial General Intelligence (PDF), Springer, ISBN 978-3-5402-3733-4, archived from the original (PDF) on 20 March 2013. Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), "Human-level artificial general intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a response 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 initial on 7 January 2016, obtained 1 April 2009. Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), "Nanotechnology and International Security", Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the initial on 29 May 2011, obtained 7 May 2011. Howe, J. (November 1994), Expert System at Edinburgh University: a Point of view, archived from the initial on 17 August 2007, recovered 30 August 2007. Johnson, Mark (1987 ), The body in the mind, Chicago, ISBN 978-0-2264-0317-5. Kurzweil, Ray (2005 ), The Singularity is Near, Viking Press. Lighthill, Professor Sir James (1973 ), "Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey", Expert System: a paper symposium, 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 Artificial Intelligence?. Stanford University. The ultimate effort is to make computer programs that can solve problems and accomplish goals worldwide as well as 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, recovered 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, recovered 7 November 2009 Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1976 ). "Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search". Communications of the ACM. 19 (3 ): 113-126. doi:10.1145/ 360018.360022. Nilsson, Nils (1998 ), Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, ISBN 978-1-5586-0467-4 NRC (1999 ), "Developments in Expert System", 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 City: Oxford University Press, archived from the initial on 25 July 2009, retrieved 6 December 2007 Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003 ), Expert System: A Modern Approach (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-790395-2 Sandberg, Anders; Boström, Nick (2008 ), Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap (PDF), Technical Report # 2008-3, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University, archived (PDF) from the 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 original on 17 March 2019, retrieved 3 September 2020 Simon, H. A. (1965 ), The Shape of Automation for Men and Management, New York: Harper & Row Turing, Alan (October 1950). "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". Mind. 59 (236 ): 433-460. doi:10.1093/ mind/LIX.236.433. ISSN 1460-2113. JSTOR 2251299. S2CID 14636783.
de Vega, Manuel; Glenberg, Arthur; Graesser, Arthur, eds. (2008 ), Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on significance and cognition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-1992-1727-4 Wang, Pei; Goertzel, Ben (2007 ). "Introduction: Aspects of Artificial General Intelligence". Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms: Proceedings of the AGI Workshop 2006. IOS Press. pp. 1-16. ISBN 978-1-5860-3758-1. Archived from the initial on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 - via ResearchGate.
Further reading

Aleksander, Igor (1996 ), Impossible Minds, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 978-1-8609-4036-1 Azevedo FA, Carvalho LR, Grinberg LT, Farfel J, et al. (April 2009), "Equal numbers of neuronal and nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled-up primate brain", The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 513 (5 ): 532-541, doi:10.1002/ cne.21974, PMID 19226510, S2CID 5200449, archived from the original on 18 February 2021, obtained 4 September 2013 - through ResearchGate Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Artificial Intelligence Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the original on 23 July 2014, obtained 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 enough to be easy to understand will not be complicated enough to act wisely, while any system made complex enough to act wisely will be too made complex to understand." (p. 197.) Computer researcher Alex Pentland composes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead easy silly. They work, but they work by brute force." (p. 198.). Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the initial on 26 July 2010, retrieved 25 July 2010. Gleick, James, "The Fate of Free Will" (evaluation of Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Choice, Princeton University Press, 2023, 333 pp.), The New York City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. "Agency is what distinguishes us from devices. For menwiki.men biological creatures, reason and function originate from acting on the planet and experiencing the effects. Artificial intelligences - disembodied, complete strangers to blood, sweat, and tears - have no celebration for that." (p. 30.). Halal, William E. "TechCast Article Series: The Automation of Thought" (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on 6 June 2013. - Halpern, Sue, "The Coming Tech Autocracy" (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 City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. "' We can't reasonably anticipate that those who hope to get abundant from AI are going to have the interests of the rest people close at heart,' ... writes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't depend on governments driven by project finance contributions [from tech companies] to push back.' ... Marcus information the needs that people should make of their federal governments and the tech companies. They include transparency on how AI systems work; settlement for individuals if their information [are] utilized to train LLMs (large language design) s and the right to authorization to this usage; and the capability to hold tech companies accountable for the harms they cause by eliminating Section 230, imposing money penalites, and passing stricter product liability laws ... Marcus likewise recommends ... that a new, AI-specific federal firm, akin to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, might provide the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law professor Chinmayi Sharma ... recommends ... establish [ing] a professional licensing regime for engineers that would operate in a comparable method to medical licenses, malpractice fits, and the Hippocratic oath in medicine. 'What if, like physicians,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers likewise promised to do no harm?'" (p. 46.). Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), "Abstraction and reformulation in 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 puzzled humans for years, reveals the constraints of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder secret competitors has actually exposed that although NLP (natural-language processing) designs can extraordinary feats, their abilities are quite restricted by the quantity of context they receive. This [...] could cause [troubles] for researchers who wish to use them to do things such as examine ancient languages. In some cases, there are couple of historic records on long-gone civilizations to act as training data for such a function." (p. 82.). Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: People now use A.I. to generate fake videos equivalent from real ones. Just how much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we suggest practical videos produced utilizing expert system that actually trick individuals, then they barely exist. The phonies aren't deep, and the deeps aren't fake. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in basic, operating in our media as counterfeited evidence. Their function much better looks like that of cartoons, vmeste-so-vsemi.ru particularly smutty ones." (p. 59.). - Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We must prevent humanizing machine-learning models used in clinical research study", Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81. Lepore, Jill, "The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a maker a discussion?", The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16. Marcus, Gary, "Artificial Confidence: Even the newest, buzziest systems of synthetic general 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 (second ed.), Natick, Massachusetts: A. K. Peters, ISBN 1-5688-1205-1. Moravec, Hans (1976 ), The Role of Raw Power in Intelligence, archived from the initial on 3 March 2016, obtained 29 September 2007. Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1963 ), "GPS: A Program that Simulates Human Thought", in Feigenbaum, E. A.; Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, New York: 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 innovation lead police to disregard inconsistent proof?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26. Roivainen, Eka, "AI's IQ: ChatGPT aced a [basic intelligence] test but showed that intelligence can not be determined by IQ alone", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 1 (July/August 2023), p. 7. "Despite its high IQ, ChatGPT fails at tasks that require genuine humanlike reasoning or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT seemed unable to factor rationally and tried to rely on its vast database of ... truths stemmed from online texts. " - Scharre, Paul, "Killer Apps: The Real Dangers of an AI Arms Race", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 3 (May/June 2019), pp. 135-44. "Today's AI innovations are powerful however unreliable. Rules-based systems can not handle situations their programmers did not anticipate. Learning systems are limited by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have actually currently caused catastrophe. Advanced auto-pilot functions in vehicles, although they perform well in some circumstances, have actually 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 enabled by new technologies but depend on the timelelss human tendency to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.). Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.