GitLab

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a kind of expert system (AI) that matches or surpasses human cognitive abilities throughout a large range of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is restricted to specific jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that greatly surpasses human cognitive abilities. AGI is thought about one of the definitions of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a primary objective of AI research and of companies such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 survey identified 72 active AGI research and development jobs throughout 37 countries. [4]
The timeline for achieving AGI stays a subject of continuous debate among researchers and specialists. Since 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or decades; others maintain it may take a century or longer; a minority believe it may never ever be accomplished; and another minority declares that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has revealed concerns about the fast progress towards AGI, suggesting it might be accomplished faster than lots of anticipate. [7]
There is argument on the precise meaning of AGI and regarding whether modern-day large language designs (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early types of AGI. [8] AGI is a typical topic in science fiction and futures research studies. [9] [10]
Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. [11] [12] [13] Many experts on AI have actually stated that alleviating the danger of human termination presented by AGI needs to be a global priority. [14] [15] Others find the development of AGI to be too remote to present such a threat. [16] [17]
Terminology

AGI is also referred to as strong AI, [18] [19] full AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level smart AI, or basic intelligent action. [21]
Some academic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience sentience or consciousness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to resolve one particular problem however does not have general cognitive capabilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness nor have a mind in the very same sense as human beings. [a]
Related ideas include artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical kind of AGI that is a lot more usually smart than humans, [23] while the notion of transformative AI relates to AI having a large effect on society, for instance, comparable to the agricultural or commercial revolution. [24]
A structure for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They define five levels of AGI: emerging, qualified, expert, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a competent AGI is specified as an AI that exceeds 50% of proficient adults in a vast array of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is similarly defined but with a limit of 100%. They consider large language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]
Characteristics

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

Researchers normally hold that intelligence is needed to do all of the following: [27]
factor, use strategy, fix puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty represent knowledge, including good sense knowledge plan discover

• communicate in natural language
• if required, integrate these abilities in completion of any offered objective

Many interdisciplinary techniques (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) consider additional characteristics such as imagination (the capability to form novel mental images and principles) [28] and autonomy. [29]
Computer-based systems that exhibit a lot of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated reasoning, decision assistance system, robotic, evolutionary calculation, smart representative). There is debate about whether modern AI systems possess them to an appropriate degree.

Physical qualities

Other capabilities are thought about desirable in intelligent systems, as they might affect intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: [30]
- the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and - the capability to act (e.g. move and control things, trademarketclassifieds.com change location to explore, etc).
This includes the capability to identify and react to danger. [31]
Although the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the capability to act (e.g. move and control objects, forum.altaycoins.com modification location to check out, and so on) can be preferable for some smart systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly needed for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language designs (LLMs) may currently be or end up being AGI. Even from a less positive perspective on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like type; being a silicon-based computational system is adequate, supplied it can process input (language) from the external world in location of human senses. This analysis lines up with the understanding that AGI has never been proscribed a particular physical personification and therefore does not require a capacity for locomotion or standard "eyes and ears". [32]
Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests suggested to validate human-level AGI have actually been thought about, consisting of: [33] [34]
The idea of the test is that the machine has to attempt and pretend to be a guy, by responding to questions put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is reasonably convincing. A significant part of a jury, who should not be skilled about devices, should be taken in by the pretence. [37]
AI-complete issues

An issue is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is thought that in order to resolve it, one would require to execute AGI, because the option is beyond the abilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]
There are numerous problems that have actually been conjectured to require basic intelligence to resolve as well as humans. Examples consist of computer system vision, natural language understanding, and handling unexpected scenarios while solving any real-world issue. [48] Even a particular job like translation needs a maker to read and write in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), understand the context (knowledge), and faithfully 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 device efficiency.

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

Classical AI

Modern AI research began in the mid-1950s. [50] The first generation of AI scientists were convinced that artificial general intelligence was possible which it would exist in simply a few years. [51] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do." [52]
Their forecasts were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers thought they could produce by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a consultant [53] on the job of making HAL 9000 as realistic as possible according to the agreement forecasts of the time. He stated in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of creating 'synthetic intelligence' will considerably be solved". [54]
Several classical AI tasks, such as Doug Lenat's Cyc project (that started in 1984), and Allen Newell's Soar project, were directed at AGI.

However, in the early 1970s, it became apparent that researchers had actually grossly underestimated the problem of the project. Funding companies ended up being 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 restored interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that included AGI objectives like "continue a table talk". [58] In reaction to this and the success of expert systems, both industry and government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI amazingly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the objectives of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever satisfied. [60] For the second time in 20 years, AI researchers who forecasted the imminent accomplishment of AGI had been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a credibility for making vain promises. They ended up being reluctant to make forecasts at all [d] and of "human level" artificial intelligence for worry of being identified "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]
Narrow AI research study

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI accomplished business success and academic respectability by focusing on particular sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable results and business applications, such as speech recognition and suggestion algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now utilized thoroughly throughout the technology market, and research in this vein is greatly funded in both academic community and market. Since 2018 [upgrade], advancement in this field was thought about an emerging pattern, and a fully grown phase was expected to be reached in more than ten years. [64]
At the turn of the century, numerous traditional AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI might be established by integrating programs that solve various sub-problems. Hans Moravec composed in 1988:

I am confident that this bottom-up path to expert system will one day fulfill the conventional top-down route more than half method, ready to supply the real-world skills and the commonsense understanding that has actually been so frustratingly elusive in reasoning programs. Fully intelligent makers will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven unifying the two 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 frequently been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow satisfy "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding considerations in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is actually only one feasible path from sense to signs: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software application level of a computer system will never ever be reached by this path (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we need to even attempt to reach such a level, since it appears getting there would simply total up to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic significances (thereby merely decreasing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer system). [66]
Modern synthetic general intelligence research study

The term "synthetic basic intelligence" was utilized as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation of the implications of completely automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI agent increases "the capability to satisfy objectives in a large range of environments". [68] This kind of AGI, characterized by the capability to maximise a mathematical definition of intelligence rather than display human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal expert system. [70]
The term AGI was re-introduced and popularized by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research study activity in 2006 was explained by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and preliminary results". The first summertime school in AGI was organized in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The first university course was given up 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT presented a course on AGI in 2018, arranged by Lex Fridman and featuring a number of visitor lecturers.

Since 2023 [update], a small number of computer system scientists are active in AGI research, and many contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, progressively more scientists are interested in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the concept of enabling AI to continually find out and innovate like people do.

Feasibility

As of 2023, the advancement and prospective achievement of AGI stays a subject of extreme argument within the AI community. While traditional consensus held that AGI was a distant goal, current developments have actually led some researchers and market figures to declare that early types of AGI may already exist. [78] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon hypothesized in 1965 that "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do". This forecast stopped working to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century because it would require "unforeseeable and basically unforeseeable breakthroughs" and a "scientifically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield claimed the gulf in between contemporary computing and human-level expert system is as wide as the gulf between current space flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]
A more obstacle is the absence of clearness in specifying what intelligence entails. Does it need awareness? Must it display the capability to set goals in addition to pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as planning, thinking, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence need explicitly duplicating the brain and its specific faculties? Does it require feelings? [81]
Most AI scientists believe strong AI can be attained in the future, but some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of accomplishing strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who believe human-level AI will be achieved, however that today level of progress is such that a date can not precisely be anticipated. [84] AI experts' views on the feasibility of AGI wax and wane. Four polls conducted in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the median estimate amongst specialists for when they would be 50% confident AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending on the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the specialists, 16.5% answered with "never ever" when asked the same question however with a 90% self-confidence instead. [85] [86] Further existing AGI development factors to consider can be found above Tests for validating human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute found that "over [a] 60-year time frame there is a strong predisposition towards forecasting the arrival of human-level AI as in between 15 and 25 years from the time the forecast was made". They examined 95 forecasts made in between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will come about. [87]
In 2023, Microsoft researchers published an in-depth assessment of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, our company believe that it might fairly be deemed an early (yet still insufficient) variation of an artificial basic intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 surpasses 99% of humans on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]
Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig composed in 2023 that a substantial level of basic intelligence has actually currently been attained with frontier designs. They wrote that reluctance to this view originates from 4 primary reasons: a "healthy apprehension about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or methods", a "devotion to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "concern about the financial implications of AGI". [91]
2023 also marked the development of big multimodal models (large language designs efficient in processing or producing several modalities such as text, audio, and images). [92]
In 2024, OpenAI launched o1-preview, the very first of a series of designs that "spend more time thinking before they react". According to Mira Murati, this capability to believe before responding represents a new, extra paradigm. It improves design outputs by spending more computing power when creating the answer, whereas the design scaling paradigm enhances outputs by increasing the model size, training information and training compute power. [93] [94]
An OpenAI employee, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the business had actually achieved AGI, mentioning, "In my opinion, 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 job", it is "better than many human beings at the majority of jobs." He also dealt with criticisms that big language models (LLMs) merely follow predefined patterns, comparing their learning procedure to the scientific technique of observing, assuming, and verifying. These declarations have actually triggered argument, as they count on a broad and non-traditional definition of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's designs show exceptional adaptability, they may not fully satisfy this standard. Notably, Kazemi's comments came soon after OpenAI eliminated "AGI" from the terms of its partnership with Microsoft, triggering speculation about the company's tactical intentions. [95]
Timescales

Progress in artificial intelligence has actually historically gone through periods of fast progress separated by durations when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were essential advances in hardware, software application or both to produce space for more progress. [82] [98] [99] For example, the computer hardware available in the twentieth century was not adequate to implement deep learning, which needs great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]
In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that quotes of the time needed before a really flexible AGI is developed differ from ten years to over a century. As of 2007 [upgrade], the agreement in the AGI research study community appeared to be that the timeline discussed by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. in between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have provided a broad variety of viewpoints on whether progress will be this rapid. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions found a predisposition towards forecasting that the onset of AGI would happen within 16-26 years for modern-day and historical forecasts alike. That paper has been criticized for how it categorized opinions as expert or non-expert. [104]
In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton developed a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competition with a top-5 test error rate of 15.3%, significantly much better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the standard approach used a weighted sum of scores from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was regarded as the initial ground-breaker of the present deep knowing wave. [105]
In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu performed intelligence tests on publicly readily available and easily available weak AI such as Google AI, Apple's Siri, and others. At the maximum, these AIs reached an IQ value of about 47, which corresponds roughly to a six-year-old child in first grade. An adult pertains to about 100 on average. Similar tests were carried out in 2014, with the IQ score reaching an optimum worth of 27. [106] [107]
In 2020, OpenAI developed GPT-3, a language model capable of carrying out many varied tasks without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat short 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 exact same year, Jason Rohrer utilized his GPT-3 account to establish a chatbot, and provided a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested changes to the chatbot to adhere to their security 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 released a research study on an early variation of OpenAI's GPT-4, competing that it showed more basic intelligence than previous AI designs and demonstrated human-level efficiency in tasks spanning numerous domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study stimulated an argument on whether GPT-4 could be thought about an early, incomplete version of artificial basic intelligence, emphasizing the requirement for additional exploration and assessment of such systems. [111]
In 2023, the AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton specified that: [112]
The concept that this stuff might in fact get smarter than individuals - a few people believed that, [...] But many people thought it was method off. And I believed it was method off. I believed it was 30 to 50 years or perhaps longer away. Obviously, I no longer believe that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly said that "The progress in the last couple of years has been quite extraordinary", which he sees no factor why it would decrease, anticipating AGI within a decade or even a couple of 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 in addition to humans. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI staff member, estimated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably plausible". [115]
Whole brain emulation

While the advancement of transformer models like in ChatGPT is considered the most promising path to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can serve as an alternative technique. With whole brain simulation, a brain model is developed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and after that copying and imitating it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation design should be adequately devoted to the initial, so that it acts in almost the very same way as the initial brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is talked about in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research functions. It has been talked about in artificial intelligence research study [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that could deliver the needed detailed understanding are enhancing rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] anticipates that a map of enough quality will appear on a comparable timescale to the computing power needed to imitate it.

Early estimates

For low-level brain simulation, an extremely effective cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be required, provided the huge amount of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells 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, supporting by their adult years. Estimates differ for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A quote of the brain's processing power, based on a basic switch model for nerve cell activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]
In 1997, Kurzweil looked at different quotes for the hardware required to equal the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 calculations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a "computation" was equivalent to one "floating-point operation" - a step used to rate existing supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be equivalent to 10 petaFLOPS, accomplished in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He used this figure to anticipate the essential hardware would be readily available at some point between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential development in computer power at the time of composing continued.

Current research

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, scientists from Duke University carried out a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.

Criticisms of simulation-based approaches

The synthetic nerve cell design assumed by Kurzweil and utilized in many present synthetic neural network implementations is basic compared to biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely need to capture the in-depth cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, presently understood only in broad summary. 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 numerous orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's price quote. In addition, the quotes do not represent glial cells, which are understood to play a function in cognitive processes. [125]
An essential criticism of the simulated brain method obtains from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is a vital element of human intelligence and is essential to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is appropriate, any totally functional brain model will require to incorporate 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 unknown whether this would suffice.

Philosophical perspective

"Strong AI" as defined in viewpoint

In 1980, philosopher John Searle coined the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese space argument. [128] He proposed a distinction between 2 hypotheses about synthetic intelligence: [f]
Strong AI hypothesis: An artificial intelligence system can have "a mind" and "awareness". Weak AI hypothesis: An artificial intelligence system can (only) imitate it thinks and has a mind and consciousness.
The first one he called "strong" since it makes a more powerful statement: it presumes something special has actually occurred to the maker that goes beyond those capabilities that we can evaluate. The behaviour of a "weak AI" machine would be specifically identical to a "strong AI" machine, but the latter would also have subjective mindful experience. This use is likewise common in scholastic AI research study and books. [129]
In contrast to Searle and traditional AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil use the term "strong AI" to suggest "human level artificial general intelligence". [102] This is not the exact same as Searle's strong AI, unless it is assumed that awareness is essential for human-level AGI. Academic philosophers such as Searle do not believe that holds true, and to most expert system researchers the concern is out-of-scope. [130]
Mainstream AI is most interested in how a program behaves. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they 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 know if it actually has mind - indeed, there would be no chance to tell. For AI research study, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is equivalent to the declaration "synthetic general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for granted, and don't care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have numerous meanings, and some aspects play significant functions in science fiction and the principles of expert system:

Sentience (or "remarkable consciousness"): The ability to "feel" understandings or feelings subjectively, rather than the capability to reason about perceptions. Some philosophers, such as David Chalmers, use the term "consciousness" to refer exclusively to extraordinary consciousness, which is roughly equivalent to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience develops is known as the hard problem of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel explained in 1974 that it "seems like" something to be mindful. If we are not conscious, then it doesn't feel like anything. Nagel utilizes the example of a bat: we can sensibly ask "what does it feel like to be a bat?" However, we are not likely to ask "what does it seem like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat appears to be mindful (i.e., has awareness) but a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer declared that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually accomplished sentience, though this claim was commonly contested by other specialists. [135]
Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a different person, specifically to be consciously knowledgeable about one's own ideas. This is opposed to merely being the "topic of one's believed"-an operating system or debugger has the ability to be "conscious of itself" (that is, to represent itself in the exact same method it represents whatever else)-however this is not what individuals typically mean when they use the term "self-awareness". [g]
These traits have an ethical dimension. AI sentience would offer rise to issues of welfare and legal protection, similarly to animals. [136] Other aspects of consciousness associated to cognitive abilities are also relevant to the idea of AI rights. [137] Determining how to incorporate advanced AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emerging issue. [138]
Benefits

AGI might have a wide range of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI could help mitigate different problems on the planet such as cravings, hardship and health issue. [139]
AGI could enhance productivity and performance in many tasks. For instance, in public health, AGI could speed up medical research study, especially against cancer. [140] It could take care of the elderly, [141] and democratize access to fast, top quality medical diagnostics. It might offer fun, cheap and customized education. [141] The need to work to subsist could end up being outdated if the wealth produced is effectively rearranged. [141] [142] This also raises the question of the place of humans in a radically automated society.

AGI could likewise help to make reasonable choices, and to anticipate and avoid catastrophes. It could also assist to profit of potentially catastrophic technologies such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while avoiding the associated threats. [143] If an AGI's main objective is to prevent existential disasters such as human extinction (which could be tough if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being true), [144] it might take procedures to significantly decrease the dangers [143] while reducing the effect of these steps on our lifestyle.

Risks

Existential dangers

AGI might represent numerous kinds of existential threat, which are dangers that threaten "the early termination of Earth-originating smart life or the irreversible and extreme damage of its potential for desirable future development". [145] The risk of human termination from AGI has been the subject of numerous disputes, however there is also the possibility that the advancement of AGI would lead to a completely problematic future. Notably, it could be used to spread and protect the set of worths of whoever develops it. If humanity still has ethical blind areas similar to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, avoiding moral development. [146] Furthermore, AGI might assist in mass surveillance and indoctrination, which might be used to develop a stable repressive around the world totalitarian routine. [147] [148] There is also a risk for the devices themselves. If machines that are sentient or otherwise worthwhile of ethical factor to consider are mass produced in the future, participating in a civilizational course that forever overlooks their well-being and interests might be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI could improve humanity's future and aid lower other existential risks, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for continuing with due caution", not for "abandoning AI". [147]
Risk of loss of control and human extinction

The thesis that AI presents an existential risk for people, and that this danger requires more attention, is controversial but has been endorsed in 2023 by many public figures, AI scientists 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, dealing with possible futures of enormous benefits and dangers, the experts are certainly doing everything possible to ensure the finest result, right? Wrong. If an exceptional alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll show up in a few decades,' would we simply respond, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is basically what is occurring with AI. [153]
The prospective fate of humanity has sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast states that greater intelligence allowed mankind to control gorillas, which are now susceptible in methods that they might not have actually prepared for. As a result, the gorilla has actually become a threatened types, not out of malice, but simply as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]
The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to control mankind and that we should take care not to anthropomorphize them and translate their intents as we would for humans. He stated that individuals won't be "smart adequate to create super-intelligent machines, yet unbelievably silly to the point of giving it moronic objectives with no safeguards". [155] On the other side, the idea of crucial merging recommends that practically whatever their objectives, smart agents will have reasons to attempt to make it through and acquire more power as intermediary steps to accomplishing these objectives. Which this does not require having emotions. [156]
Many scholars who are concerned about existential danger supporter for more research study into fixing the "control problem" to respond to the question: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers carry out to maximise the probability that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, rather than devastating, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is complicated by the AI arms race (which might result in a race to the bottom of safety preventative measures in order to launch items before competitors), [159] and using AI in weapon systems. [160]
The thesis that AI can pose existential danger also has critics. Skeptics normally state that AGI is not likely in the short-term, or that concerns about AGI sidetrack from other problems connected to existing AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for lots of people beyond the innovation market, existing chatbots and LLMs are already viewed as though they were AGI, causing additional misconception and worry. [162]
Skeptics in some cases charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an irrational belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an illogical belief in a supreme God. [163] Some scientists think that the communication projects on AI existential risk by specific AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might be an at effort at regulatory capture and to inflate interest in their items. [164] [165]
In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, together with other market leaders and researchers, released a joint statement asserting that "Mitigating the danger of extinction from AI should be a worldwide concern alongside 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 could have at least 10% of their work tasks impacted by the intro of LLMs, while around 19% of workers might see at least 50% of their jobs affected". [166] [167] They consider workplace employees to be the most exposed, for instance mathematicians, accountants or web designers. [167] AGI might have a better autonomy, capability to make choices, to interface with other computer tools, but likewise to control robotized bodies.

According to Stephen Hawking, the outcome of automation on the quality of life will depend on how the wealth will be redistributed: [142]
Everyone can take pleasure in a life of elegant leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or many people can end up miserably bad if the machine-owners effectively lobby against wealth redistribution. Up until now, the trend appears to be toward the 2nd choice, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

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

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities comparable to those of the animal or human brain AI result AI safety - Research location on making AI safe and beneficial 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 artificial intelligence BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research effort revealed by the Obama administration China Brain Project Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre General game playing - Ability of synthetic intelligence to play various games Generative synthetic intelligence - AI system capable of creating content in action to prompts Human Brain Project - Scientific research study job Intelligence amplification - Use of infotech to enhance human intelligence (IA). Machine ethics - Moral behaviours of manufactured machines. Moravec's paradox. Multi-task knowing - Solving numerous machine learning jobs at the very same time. Neural scaling law - Statistical law in artificial intelligence. Outline of artificial intelligence - Overview of and topical guide to expert system. Transhumanism - Philosophical motion. Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or form of synthetic intelligence. Transfer learning - Artificial intelligence strategy. Loebner Prize - Annual AI competition. Hardware for expert system - Hardware specifically designed and enhanced for expert system. Weak artificial intelligence - Form of expert system.
Notes

^ a b See below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the academic definition of "strong AI" and weak AI in the article Chinese space. ^ AI creator John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet identify in general what kinds of computational procedures we desire to call smart. " [26] (For a conversation of some meanings of intelligence used by artificial intelligence scientists, see approach of expert system.). ^ The Lighthill report particularly slammed AI's "grand goals" and led the dismantling of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became figured out to money only "mission-oriented direct research study, instead of standard undirected research". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy composes "it would be a fantastic relief to the remainder of the workers in AI if the inventors of brand-new basic formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more safeguarded type than has often held true." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil introduced. ^ As defined in a basic AI book: "The assertion that devices could potentially act wisely (or, maybe much better, act as if they were smart) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that machines that do so are in fact believing (rather than 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 synthetic narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is designed to perform a single job. ^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our objective is to make sure that artificial basic intelligence advantages all of humanity. ^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's new objective is developing synthetic basic 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 jobs were recognized as being active in 2020. ^ a b c "AI timelines: What do experts in synthetic intelligence expect for the future?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 6 April 2023. ^ Metz, Cade (15 May 2023). "Some Researchers Say A.I. Is Already Here, Stirring Debate in Tech Circles". The New York City Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023. ^ "AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton gives up Google and warns of risk ahead". The New York Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is hard to see how you can prevent the bad stars from utilizing 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 reveals 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 alter changes you. ^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming. ^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Artificial Intelligence". The New York Times. The genuine threat is not AI itself however the method we deploy 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 could position existential threats to humankind. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The first superintelligence will be the last creation that humankind requires to make. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. Mitigating the threat of extinction from AI must be an international concern. ^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI professionals caution of danger 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 creating machines that can outthink us in basic ways. ^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not provide an existential threat". Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential risk. ^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260. ^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the initial on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil describes strong AI as "maker intelligence with the complete range of human intelligence.". ^ "The Age of Expert System: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the original on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014. ^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they use for "human-level" intelligence in the physical symbol system hypothesis. ^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the initial on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007. ^ "What is artificial superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023. ^ "Artificial intelligence is transforming our world - it is on everyone to make sure that it goes well". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023. ^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to attaining AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat. ^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007. ^ This list of smart qualities is based upon the topics covered by major AI textbooks, including: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998. ^ Johnson 1987. ^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press. ^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body forms the 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 reevaluated: The idea of competence". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the original on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014. ^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the original on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019. ^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What 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 '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 exam to AP Biology. Here's a list of difficult examinations both AI versions have actually passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Artificial Intelligence Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Take Advantage Of It". Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is undependable. The Winograd Schema is obsolete. 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 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 ). "Expert System" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (Second ed.). New York City: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".). ^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Defining Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Expert System, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 May 2013. ^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". Stanford University Human-Centered Expert System. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50. ^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). "Artificial Intelligence, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the original on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022. ^ Simon 1965, p. 96 priced quote in Crevier 1993, p. 109. ^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008. ^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), quoted in Crevier (1993, p. 109). ^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994. ^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment". ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22. ^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see likewise Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212. ^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). "Reply to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the original 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 original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system researchers and software application engineers prevented the term artificial intelligence for worry of being viewed 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 Technology an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the initial on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022. ^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022. ^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410. ^ "Who created the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the initial on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., via 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: 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 original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 - зимен триместър" [Elective courses 2010/2011 - winter season trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limitations of maker intelligence: Despite development in maker intelligence, synthetic general intelligence is still a major difficulty". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early 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 monster". 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 understood". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1 ): 1-9. doi:10.1057/ s41599-020-0494-4. hdl:11250/ 2726984. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 219710554. ^ McCarthy 2007b. ^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (23 November 2015). "The Doomsday Invention: Will synthetic intelligence bring us utopia or damage?". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016. ^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future development in synthetic intelligence: A survey of skilled viewpoint. In Fundamental concerns of artificial intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham. ^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, 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 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 synthetic general intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture". Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the initial on 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022. ^ Pandey, Mohit; Fernandez, Michael; Gentile, Francesco; Isayev, Olexandr; Tropsha, Alexander; Stern, Abraham C.; Cherkasov, Artem (March 2022). "The transformational role of GPU computing and deep knowing in drug discovery". Nature Machine Intelligence. 4 (3 ): 211-221. doi:10.1038/ s42256-022-00463-x. ISSN 2522-5839. S2CID 252081559. ^ Goertzel & Pennachin 2006. ^ a b c (Kurzweil 2005, p. 260). ^ a b c Goertzel 2007. ^ Grace, Katja (2016 ). "Error in Armstrong and Sotala 2012". AI Impacts (blog). Archived from the 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 Artificial Intelligence". 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 smart as Siri - but a six-year-old beats both] (in German). Archived from the initial on 3 January 2019. Retrieved 2 January 2019. ^ Grossman, Gary (3 September 2020). "We're entering the AI golden zone in between narrow and general AI". VentureBeat. Archived from the initial on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020. Certainly, too, there are those who declare we are currently seeing an early example of an AGI system in the recently revealed GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. ... So is GPT-3 the very first example of an AGI system? This is arguable, however the consensus is that it is not AGI. ... If nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a happy medium between narrow and general AI. ^ Quach, Katyanna. "A designer constructed an AI chatbot using GPT-3 that assisted a guy speak again to his late fiancée. OpenAI shut it down". The Register. Archived from the original on 16 October 2021. Retrieved 16 October 2021. ^ Wiggers, Kyle (13 May 2022), "DeepMind's brand-new AI can perform 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 Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ Bove, Tristan. "A.I. might rival human intelligence in 'simply a couple of years,' states CEO of Google's main A.I. research study lab". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024. ^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO says AI could pass human tests in five years". Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead". ^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). "Why everybody 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 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 study 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 current research, all of which require grounding to some degree ^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How uploading our minds to a computer system 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 quote in" Encyclopedia.com"),. MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (priced estimate in "AITopics"),. Will Biological Computers Enable Artificially Intelligent Machines to Become Persons? Archived 13 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Anthony Tongen.


^ a b c Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 947. ^ though see Explainable synthetic intelligence for curiosity 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 thinks the business's AI has actually come to life". The Washington Post. 11 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Nosta, John (18 December 2023). "Should 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 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 Look 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 City, New York City, USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Piper, Kelsey (19 November 2018). "How technological progress is making it likelier than ever that human beings will damage ourselves". Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). "Climate alter an 'existential security risk' to Australia, Senate questions states". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023. ^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York City, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6. ^ a b Ord, Toby (2020 ). "Chapter 5: Future Risks, Unaligned Artificial Intelligence". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9. ^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious". Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). "Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ a b "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence takes a look at the ramifications of synthetic 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 interesting Facebook dispute in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the dangers of strong AI". The remarkable Facebook argument between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the threats of strong AI (in French). Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Will Expert System Doom The Mankind Within The Next 100 Years?". HuffPost. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sotala, Kaj; Yampolskiy, Roman V. (19 December 2014). "Responses to disastrous AGI threat: a study". Physica Scripta. 90 (1 ): 018001. doi:10.1088/ 0031-8949/90/ 1/018001. ISSN 0031-8949. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (First ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Chow, Andrew R.; Perrigo, Billy (16 February 2023). "The AI Arms Race Is On. Start Worrying". TIME. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Tetlow, Gemma (12 January 2017). "AI arms race risks spiralling out of control, report 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 but expert system 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 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 founder states big tech is lying about AI termination threat". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the initial 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 systemcheck-wiki.de market effect capacity of big language designs". OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). "OpenAI states 80% of employees might see their tasks impacted by AI. These are the jobs most impacted". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk states we need universal fundamental income due to the fact that 'in the future, manual labor will be a choice'". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Sources

UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the original on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021. Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press. Clocksin, William (August 2003), "Expert system and the future", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007. Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous Look For Expert System. New York City, NY: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-02997-3. Darrach, Brad (20 November 1970), "Meet Shakey, the First Electronic Person", Life Magazine, pp. 58-68. Drachman, D. (2005 ), "Do we have brain to spare?", Neurology, 64 (12 ): 2004-2005, doi:10.1212/ 01. WNL.0000166914.38327. BB, PMID 15985565, S2CID 38482114. Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983 ), The Fifth Generation: Expert System and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World, Michael Joseph, ISBN 978-0-7181-2401-4. Goertzel, Ben; Pennachin, Cassio, eds. (2006 ), Artificial General Intelligence (PDF), Springer, ISBN 978-3-5402-3733-4, archived from the initial (PDF) on 20 March 2013. Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), "Human-level artificial basic intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a response to Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott's review of Kurzweil", Expert system, vol. 171, no. 18, Special Review Issue, pp. 1161-1173, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.011, archived from the original on 7 January 2016, retrieved 1 April 2009. Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), "Nanotechnology and International Security", Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the original on 29 May 2011, recovered 7 May 2011. Howe, J. (November 1994), Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University: a Viewpoint, archived from the original on 17 August 2007, recovered 30 August 2007. Johnson, Mark (1987 ), The body in the mind, Chicago, ISBN 978-0-2264-0317-5. Kurzweil, Ray (2005 ), The Singularity is Near, Viking Press. Lighthill, Professor Sir James (1973 ), "Expert System: 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 resolve issues and attain goals in the world as well as human beings. Moravec, Hans (1988 ), Mind Children, Harvard University Press Moravec, Hans (1998 ), "When will computer system hardware match the human brain?", Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 1, archived from the initial 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 original 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 Expert System", Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research, National Academy Press, archived from the initial on 12 January 2008, retrieved 29 September 2007 Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Rational Approach, New York City: Oxford University Press, archived from the original on 25 July 2009, obtained 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, obtained 5 April 2009 Searle, John (1980 ), "Minds, Brains and Programs" (PDF), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (3 ): 417-457, doi:10.1017/ S0140525X00005756, S2CID 55303721, archived (PDF) from the original on 17 March 2019, 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 meaning and cognition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-1992-1727-4 Wang, Pei; Goertzel, Ben (2007 ). "Introduction: Aspects of Artificial General Intelligence". Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms: Proceedings of the AGI Workshop 2006. IOS Press. pp. 1-16. ISBN 978-1-5860-3758-1. Archived from the initial on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 - through ResearchGate.
Further reading

Aleksander, Igor (1996 ), Impossible Minds, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 978-1-8609-4036-1 Azevedo FA, Carvalho LR, Grinberg LT, Farfel J, et al. (April 2009), "Equal numbers of neuronal and nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled-up primate brain", The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 513 (5 ): 532-541, doi:10.1002/ cne.21974, PMID 19226510, S2CID 5200449, archived from the initial on 18 February 2021, retrieved 4 September 2013 - through ResearchGate Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Expert System Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the original on 23 July 2014, obtained 31 August 2012 Cukier, Kenneth, "Ready for Robots? How to Think of the Future of AI", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 4 (July/August 2019), pp. 192-98. George Dyson, historian of computing, composes (in what might be called "Dyson's Law") that "Any system simple sufficient to be understandable will not be complicated enough to act wisely, while any system complicated enough to act smartly will be too made complex to understand." (p. 197.) Computer researcher Alex Pentland writes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead easy foolish. They work, however they work by brute force." (p. 198.). Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the initial on 26 July 2010, obtained 25 July 2010. Gleick, James, "The Fate of Free Choice" (review of Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Choice, Princeton University Press, 2023, 333 pp.), The New York City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. "Agency is what distinguishes us from devices. For biological creatures, factor and function come from acting on the planet and experiencing the consequences. Expert systems - disembodied, forum.batman.gainedge.org complete strangers to blood, sweat, and tears - have no event for that." (p. 30.). Halal, William E. "TechCast Article Series: The Automation of Thought" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 June 2013. - Halpern, Sue, "The Coming Tech Autocracy" (review of Verity Harding, AI Needs You: How We Can Change AI's Future and Save Our Own, Princeton University Press, 274 pp.; Gary Marcus, Taming Silicon Valley: How We Can Ensure That AI Works for Us, MIT Press, 235 pp.; Daniela Rus and Gregory Mone, The Mind's Mirror: Risk and Reward in the Age of AI, Norton, 280 pp.; Madhumita Murgia, Code Dependent: 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,' ... composes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't count on governments driven by campaign financing contributions [from tech business] to push back.' ... Marcus information the demands that people must make of their federal governments and the tech business. They include openness on how AI systems work; compensation for people if their data [are] used to train LLMs (large language design) s and the right to authorization to this usage; and the capability to hold tech companies liable for the damages they trigger by removing Section 230, enforcing money penalites, and passing stricter item liability laws ... Marcus also recommends ... that a brand-new, AI-specific federal firm, comparable to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, might supply the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law teacher Chinmayi Sharma ... recommends ... establish [ing] a professional licensing regime for forum.batman.gainedge.org engineers that would operate in a comparable way to medical licenses, malpractice suits, and the Hippocratic oath in medication. 'What if, like physicians,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers also swore to do no damage?'" (p. 46.). Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), "Abstraction and forum.altaycoins.com reformulation in synthetic intelligence", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 358, no. 1435, pp. 1197-1204, doi:10.1098/ rstb.2003.1317, PMC 1693218, PMID 12903653. Hughes-Castleberry, Kenna, "A Murder Mystery Puzzle: The literary puzzle Cain's Jawbone, which has baffled humans for decades, exposes the restrictions of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder secret competition has actually revealed that although NLP (natural-language processing) designs are capable of amazing accomplishments, their abilities are extremely much limited by the quantity of context they receive. This [...] might trigger [problems] for researchers who hope to use them to do things such as analyze ancient languages. In some cases, there are couple of historical records on long-gone civilizations to work as training information for such a function." (p. 82.). Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: People now utilize A.I. to create fake videos identical from genuine ones. How much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we indicate practical videos produced utilizing expert system that actually trick individuals, then they hardly exist. The phonies aren't deep, and the deeps aren't fake. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in general, operating in our media as counterfeited evidence. Their function better looks like that of cartoons, particularly smutty ones." (p. 59.). - Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We must avoid humanizing machine-learning models used in scientific 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 latest, buzziest systems of synthetic general intelligence are stymmied by the usual issues", 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 original on 3 March 2016, recovered 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 Artificial Intelligence, provided and distributed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California. Press, Eyal, "In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition innovation lead authorities to disregard inconsistent evidence?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26. Roivainen, Eka, "AI's IQ: ChatGPT aced a [standard intelligence] test but revealed that intelligence can not be measured by IQ alone", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 1 (July/August 2023), p. 7. "Despite its high IQ, ChatGPT stops working at jobs that require genuine humanlike thinking or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT appeared unable to factor rationally and attempted to rely on its vast database of ... realities derived from online texts. " - Scharre, Paul, "Killer Apps: The Real Dangers of an AI Arms Race", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 3 (May/June 2019), pp. 135-44. "Today's AI innovations are powerful but undependable. Rules-based systems can not handle circumstances their developers did not expect. Learning systems are restricted by the information on which they were trained. AI failures have actually currently caused disaster. Advanced autopilot features in vehicles, although they perform well in some situations, have actually driven cars without alerting into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked cars. In the incorrect circumstance, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an immediate. When an enemy is attempting to control and hack an AI system, the threats are even greater." (p. 140.). Sutherland, J. G. (1990 ), "Holographic Model of Memory, Learning, and Expression", International Journal of Neural Systems, vol. 1-3, pp. 256-267. - Vincent, James, "Horny Robot Baby Voice: James Vincent on AI chatbots", London Review of Books, vol. 46, no. 19 (10 October 2024), pp. 29-32." [AI chatbot] programs are enabled by brand-new technologies but count on the timelelss human tendency to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.). Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.