GitLab

Artificial basic intelligence (AGI) is a kind of expert system (AI) that matches or goes beyond human cognitive abilities across a broad variety of cognitive tasks. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is restricted to specific jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, describes AGI that considerably goes beyond human cognitive abilities. AGI is considered among the meanings of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a main objective of AI research and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 survey determined 72 active AGI research study and advancement jobs throughout 37 nations. [4]
The timeline for attaining AGI remains a subject of continuous debate among scientists and professionals. Since 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or decades; others maintain it might take a century or longer; a minority believe it may never ever be achieved; and another minority declares that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has revealed issues about the fast development towards AGI, suggesting it could be accomplished quicker than many expect. [7]
There is argument on the precise meaning of AGI and concerning whether contemporary large language designs (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early types of AGI. [8] AGI is a typical subject in science fiction and futures studies. [9] [10]
Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. [11] [12] [13] Many specialists on AI have actually stated that reducing the threat of human termination posed by AGI ought to be a worldwide top priority. [14] [15] Others find the advancement of AGI to be too remote to present such a danger. [16] [17]
Terminology

AGI is likewise called strong AI, [18] [19] complete AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level intelligent AI, or general intelligent action. [21]
Some scholastic sources book the term "strong AI" for computer system programs that experience sentience or consciousness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to fix one specific issue however lacks basic 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 same sense as people. [a]
Related principles include artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical kind of AGI that is much more usually smart than human beings, [23] while the idea of transformative AI associates with AI having a big effect on society, utahsyardsale.com for instance, similar to the farming or commercial transformation. [24]
A structure for classifying AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They specify 5 levels of AGI: emerging, proficient, expert, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a skilled AGI is defined as an AI that surpasses 50% of proficient grownups in a vast array of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is similarly specified but with a limit of 100%. They consider large language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]
Characteristics

Various popular meanings of intelligence have been proposed. Among the leading propositions is the Turing test. However, there are other well-known definitions, and some scientists disagree with the more popular techniques. [b]
Intelligence traits

Researchers usually hold that intelligence is required to do all of the following: [27]
reason, usage technique, resolve puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability represent understanding, consisting of good sense knowledge plan learn

• communicate in natural language
• if essential, incorporate these abilities in conclusion of any given objective

Many interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) consider additional qualities such as imagination (the ability to form unique mental images and concepts) [28] and autonomy. [29]
Computer-based systems that display a lot of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated thinking, decision support system, robot, evolutionary calculation, intelligent representative). There is dispute about whether contemporary AI systems possess them to a sufficient degree.

Physical characteristics

Other capabilities are considered preferable in smart systems, as they may impact intelligence or aid in its expression. These consist of: [30]
- the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on), and - the ability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate things, modification place to check out, and so on).
This consists of the ability to find and respond to risk. [31]
Although the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, accc.rcec.sinica.edu.tw etc) and the ability to act (e.g. move and control objects, modification location to check out, etc) can be preferable for some smart systems, [30] these physical abilities are not strictly required for an entity to certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language designs (LLMs) might currently be or become 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, provided it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This analysis lines up with the understanding that AGI has actually never ever been proscribed a specific physical embodiment and hence does not demand a capability for locomotion or conventional "eyes and ears". [32]
Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests meant to validate human-level AGI have actually been considered, consisting of: [33] [34]
The idea of the test is that the device has to attempt and pretend to be a male, by answering concerns put to it, and securityholes.science it will only pass if the pretence is reasonably persuading. A significant part of a jury, who ought to not be professional about devices, need to 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 solve it, one would require to execute AGI, because the solution is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]
There are lots of issues that have been conjectured to require general intelligence to resolve as well as human beings. Examples include computer system vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unforeseen situations while fixing any real-world issue. [48] Even a particular task like translation requires a maker to check out and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), comprehend the context (knowledge), passfun.awardspace.us and consistently replicate the author's initial intent (social intelligence). All of these issues need to be fixed concurrently in order to reach human-level device performance.

However, a number of these jobs can now be performed by contemporary large language designs. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has actually reached human-level performance on lots of criteria for reading comprehension and visual reasoning. [49]
History

Classical AI

Modern AI research study began in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI researchers were persuaded that synthetic basic intelligence was possible which it would exist in simply a few decades. [51] AI leader Herbert A. Simon composed in 1965: "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do." [52]
Their predictions were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers thought they might develop by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a specialist [53] on the task of making HAL 9000 as realistic as possible according to the agreement predictions of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation ... the issue of developing 'artificial intelligence' will significantly be solved". [54]
Several classical AI projects, 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 scientists had actually grossly undervalued the difficulty of the task. Funding companies became hesitant of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce helpful "applied AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project restored interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that consisted of AGI goals like "continue a casual conversation". [58] In action to this and the success of expert systems, both industry and government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, qoocle.com confidence in AI stunningly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever satisfied. [60] For the second time in 20 years, AI researchers who anticipated the imminent accomplishment of AGI had actually been mistaken. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a track record for making vain guarantees. They ended up being hesitant to make predictions at all [d] and avoided mention 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 attained industrial 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 used extensively throughout the technology market, and research in this vein is heavily funded in both academic community and market. As of 2018 [update], advancement in this field was considered an emerging pattern, and a fully grown phase 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 developed by integrating programs that solve different sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:

I am confident that this bottom-up route to artificial intelligence will one day fulfill the traditional top-down path majority way, ready to provide the real-world proficiency and the commonsense knowledge that has been so frustratingly evasive in thinking programs. Fully smart makers 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 symbol grounding hypothesis by specifying:

The expectation has actually frequently been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow fulfill "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper are legitimate, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is actually only one feasible route from sense to signs: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software level of a computer will never ever be reached by this path (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we must even attempt to reach such a level, considering that it looks as if getting there would simply total up to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic significances (thus merely minimizing ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]
Modern artificial general intelligence research

The term "artificial general intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation of the ramifications of totally automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI representative maximises "the ability to please objectives in a vast array of environments". [68] This kind of AGI, identified by the ability to maximise a mathematical meaning of intelligence rather than display human-like behaviour, [69] was likewise called universal synthetic intelligence. [70]
The term AGI was re-introduced and promoted by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research activity in 2006 was described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and initial outcomes". The first summer school in AGI was organized in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The very first university course was offered in 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT provided a course on AGI in 2018, arranged by Lex Fridman and featuring a number of visitor speakers.

Since 2023 [update], a small number of computer system researchers are active in AGI research study, and numerous contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, increasingly more researchers have an interest in open-ended knowing, [76] [77] which is the concept of permitting AI to constantly discover and innovate like humans do.

Feasibility

Since 2023, the development and prospective accomplishment of AGI stays a topic of extreme dispute within the AI community. While standard agreement held that AGI was a distant goal, recent improvements have led some researchers and market figures to declare that early kinds of AGI may already exist. [78] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do". This prediction stopped working to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen believed that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century because it would require "unforeseeable and basically unforeseeable developments" and a "scientifically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf in between contemporary computing and human-level synthetic intelligence is as large as the gulf in between existing area flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]
An additional challenge is the absence of clearness in specifying what intelligence involves. Does it require awareness? Must it display the capability to set goals in addition to pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if model sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as preparation, thinking, and causal understanding needed? Does intelligence need explicitly replicating the brain and its particular faculties? Does it require feelings? [81]
Most AI researchers believe strong AI can be achieved 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 accomplished, however that the present level of development is such that a date can not properly be forecasted. [84] AI experts' views on the expediency of AGI wax and subside. Four surveys conducted in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the typical estimate amongst experts for when they would be 50% positive AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending on the poll, with the mean being 2081. Of the professionals, 16.5% addressed with "never" when asked the very same concern but with a 90% self-confidence instead. [85] [86] Further current AGI development considerations can be discovered above Tests for confirming human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute discovered that "over [a] 60-year amount of time there is a strong predisposition towards forecasting 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 researchers released an in-depth evaluation of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, our company believe that it could reasonably be considered as an early (yet still incomplete) variation of a synthetic general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another research study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 surpasses 99% of human beings 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 already been achieved with frontier models. They composed that hesitation to this view originates from four main factors: a "healthy skepticism about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or techniques", a "dedication to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "issue about the economic ramifications of AGI". [91]
2023 also marked the introduction of large multimodal designs (large language designs capable of processing or producing several techniques such as text, audio, and images). [92]
In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the very first of a series of models that "invest more time thinking before they react". According to Mira Murati, this capability to believe before responding represents a new, additional paradigm. It improves model outputs by spending more computing power when producing 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, claimed in 2024 that the company had actually accomplished AGI, stating, "In my viewpoint, we have currently accomplished AGI and it's much 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 people at most jobs." He likewise attended to criticisms that large language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing process to the clinical technique of observing, hypothesizing, and validating. These statements have actually triggered debate, as they count on a broad and non-traditional meaning of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence across all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's designs demonstrate exceptional flexibility, they might not fully satisfy this standard. Notably, Kazemi's remarks came soon after OpenAI eliminated "AGI" from the regards to its partnership with Microsoft, triggering speculation about the company's strategic objectives. [95]
Timescales

Progress in expert system has actually historically gone through periods of quick progress separated by durations when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were fundamental advances in hardware, software application or both to create area for additional progress. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware readily available in the twentieth century was not adequate to implement deep learning, which requires great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]
In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that quotes of the time required before a truly flexible AGI is developed vary from 10 years to over a century. Since 2007 [update], the agreement in the AGI research study community seemed to be that the timeline discussed by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have offered a wide variety of opinions on whether development will be this quick. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such viewpoints discovered a predisposition towards anticipating that the beginning of AGI would occur within 16-26 years for modern-day and historical predictions alike. That paper has actually been criticized for how it categorized viewpoints as expert or non-expert. [104]
In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton established a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competitors with a top-5 test mistake rate of 15.3%, significantly much better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the traditional approach utilized a weighted sum of scores from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was related to as the preliminary ground-breaker of the current deep knowing wave. [105]
In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu carried out intelligence tests on publicly offered 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 around to a six-year-old child in very first grade. An adult pertains to about 100 usually. Similar tests were performed in 2014, with the IQ score reaching an optimum value of 27. [106] [107]
In 2020, OpenAI developed GPT-3, a language design efficient in carrying out numerous diverse jobs 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 categorized as a narrow AI system. [108]
In the same year, Jason Rohrer used his GPT-3 account to develop a chatbot, and offered a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested for modifications to the chatbot to abide by their safety standards; Rohrer disconnected Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]
In 2022, DeepMind developed Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of performing more than 600 different tasks. [110]
In 2023, Microsoft Research released a study on an early variation of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it displayed more basic intelligence than previous AI models and showed human-level efficiency in tasks covering multiple domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research triggered a debate on whether GPT-4 could be considered an early, incomplete version of artificial general intelligence, highlighting the requirement for more expedition and examination of such systems. [111]
In 2023, the AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton specified that: [112]
The idea that this things could really get smarter than people - a couple of individuals thought that, [...] But many people believed it was way off. And I believed it was way off. I believed it was 30 to 50 years or even longer away. Obviously, I no longer believe that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis likewise stated that "The development in the last couple of years has been pretty unbelievable", which he sees no reason that it would decrease, expecting AGI within a decade and even a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, specified his expectation that within five years, AI would can passing any test a minimum of as well as humans. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI employee, approximated 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 course to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can act as an alternative method. With entire brain simulation, a brain design is developed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and after that copying and replicating it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation model need to be adequately loyal to the initial, so that it acts in practically the exact same method as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a type of brain simulation that is discussed in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study purposes. It has been talked about in expert system research [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that might deliver the required in-depth understanding are improving quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] forecasts that a map of enough quality will appear on a similar timescale to the computing power required to emulate it.

Early approximates

For low-level brain simulation, a really effective cluster of computers or GPUs would be needed, given the enormous quantity 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 neurons. The brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number decreases with age, stabilizing by their adult years. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A quote of the brain's processing power, based on a basic switch design for nerve cell activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]
In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at different price quotes for the hardware needed to equate to the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 calculations per second (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a "computation" was equivalent to one "floating-point operation" - a measure utilized to rate present supercomputers - then 1016 "calculations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, accomplished in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He used this figure to anticipate the necessary hardware would be offered sometime between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential development in computer power at the time of composing continued.

Current research study

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded effort active from 2013 to 2023, has actually established a particularly in-depth and publicly accessible 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 techniques

The synthetic neuron design presumed by Kurzweil and used in lots of existing synthetic neural network implementations is simple compared with biological nerve cells. A brain simulation would likely need to capture the in-depth cellular behaviour of biological neurons, currently comprehended just in broad outline. The overhead introduced by complete modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (especially on a molecular scale) would require computational powers numerous orders of magnitude bigger than Kurzweil's quote. In addition, the quotes do not represent glial cells, which are known to contribute in cognitive processes. [125]
An essential criticism of the simulated brain approach stems from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is an essential element of human intelligence and is necessary to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is appropriate, any completely practical brain design will need to encompass more than just the nerve cells (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual embodiment (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an option, however it is unidentified whether this would be sufficient.

Philosophical viewpoint

"Strong AI" as defined in philosophy

In 1980, thinker John Searle coined the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese room argument. [128] He proposed a difference between two hypotheses about artificial intelligence: [f]
Strong AI hypothesis: An artificial intelligence system can have "a mind" and "consciousness". Weak AI hypothesis: An expert system system can (just) act like it believes and has a mind and consciousness.
The very first one he called "strong" due to the fact that it makes a stronger statement: it presumes something unique has actually taken place to the machine that surpasses those abilities that we can evaluate. The behaviour of a "weak AI" machine would be specifically similar to a "strong AI" machine, but the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This usage is also typical in scholastic AI research and books. [129]
In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil use the term "strong AI" to indicate "human level artificial general intelligence". [102] This is not the like Searle's strong AI, unless it is presumed that consciousness is needed for human-level AGI. Academic philosophers such as Searle do not believe that holds true, and to most synthetic intelligence 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 do not care if you call it genuine or a simulation." [130] If the program can act 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 do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are two various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have numerous meanings, and some aspects play significant roles in sci-fi and the principles of artificial intelligence:

Sentience (or "phenomenal awareness"): The capability to "feel" understandings or feelings subjectively, instead of the ability to factor about understandings. Some philosophers, such as David Chalmers, use the term "awareness" to refer exclusively to extraordinary consciousness, which is approximately equivalent to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience develops is known as the hard problem of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel discussed in 1974 that it "seems like" something to be mindful. If we are not mindful, then it doesn't 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 seem like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat appears to be 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 actually attained life, though this claim was commonly challenged by other specialists. [135]
Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a different person, especially to be purposely aware of one's own thoughts. This is opposed to simply being the "topic of one's thought"-an operating system or debugger has the ability to be "conscious of itself" (that is, to represent itself in the same way it represents everything else)-but this is not what individuals generally imply when they use the term "self-awareness". [g]
These traits have a moral measurement. AI sentience would trigger issues of welfare and legal protection, likewise to animals. [136] Other elements of awareness associated to cognitive abilities are likewise appropriate to the idea of AI rights. [137] Finding out how to integrate advanced AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emerging issue. [138]
Benefits

AGI might have a large variety of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI could help reduce different issues in the world such as hunger, poverty and health issue. [139]
AGI could enhance efficiency and performance in a lot of jobs. For example, in public health, AGI might accelerate medical research study, notably against cancer. [140] It might take care of the elderly, [141] and democratize access to rapid, high-quality medical diagnostics. It might use enjoyable, cheap and individualized education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist might become obsolete if the wealth produced is correctly rearranged. [141] [142] This also raises the concern of the place of human beings in a significantly automated society.

AGI could also help to make rational decisions, and to expect and avoid catastrophes. It might also help to reap the advantages of possibly disastrous technologies such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while avoiding the associated risks. [143] If an AGI's main objective is to prevent existential disasters such as human termination (which might be challenging if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be real), [144] it could take procedures to significantly decrease the risks [143] while reducing the impact of these measures on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential dangers

AGI may represent numerous types of existential danger, which are dangers that threaten "the early extinction of Earth-originating smart life or the irreversible and drastic destruction of its capacity for preferable future development". [145] The danger of human termination from AGI has actually been the topic of lots of disputes, but there is likewise the possibility that the development of AGI would result in a completely flawed future. Notably, it could be used to spread out and protect the set of values of whoever develops it. If humanity still has ethical blind areas comparable to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, preventing moral development. [146] Furthermore, AGI could facilitate mass security and indoctrination, which might be used to develop a stable repressive worldwide totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is also a threat for the machines themselves. If devices that are sentient or otherwise worthwhile of moral factor to consider are mass produced in the future, engaging in a civilizational path that indefinitely neglects their welfare and interests could be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering how much AGI could improve humanity's future and assistance reduce other existential risks, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for proceeding with due caution", not for "abandoning AI". [147]
Risk of loss of control and human extinction

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

So, dealing with possible futures of incalculable advantages and risks, the professionals are certainly doing everything possible to make sure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll show up in a few years,' would we just reply, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is basically what is taking place with AI. [153]
The potential fate of humanity has actually sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast mentions that higher intelligence allowed humanity to dominate gorillas, which are now vulnerable in manner ins which they might not have anticipated. As a result, the gorilla has actually become an endangered 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 humankind which we should beware not to anthropomorphize them and analyze their intents as we would for people. He said that people will not be "wise enough to design super-intelligent machines, yet unbelievably dumb to the point of giving it moronic goals without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the principle of important merging recommends that practically whatever their objectives, intelligent agents will have factors to try to make it through and get more power as intermediary actions to achieving these objectives. Which this does not need having feelings. [156]
Many scholars who are worried about existential threat supporter for more research into solving the "control problem" to address the question: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers execute to increase the possibility that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, instead of damaging, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem 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 the use of AI in weapon systems. [160]
The thesis that AI can present existential risk also has critics. Skeptics generally say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI sidetrack from other issues associated with present AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for lots of people outside of the technology industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are currently viewed as though they were AGI, resulting in more misconception and fear. [162]
Skeptics often charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an unreasonable belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an illogical belief in an omnipotent God. [163] Some researchers believe that the communication campaigns on AI existential threat by particular AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might 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, issued a joint statement asserting that "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI need to be a global concern together with other societal-scale dangers such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]
Mass unemployment

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

According to Stephen Hawking, the outcome of automation on the lifestyle 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 versus wealth redistribution. Up until now, the pattern appears to be toward the 2nd option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

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

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive capabilities similar to those of the animal or human brain AI impact AI safety - Research area on making AI safe and useful AI positioning - AI conformance to the desired objective A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža Expert system Automated machine knowing - Process of automating the application of artificial intelligence BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research initiative revealed by the Obama administration China Brain Project Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre General video game playing - Ability of expert system to play various video games Generative expert system - AI system capable of creating content in response to prompts Human Brain Project - Scientific research study task Intelligence amplification - Use of infotech to enhance human intelligence (IA). Machine ethics - Moral behaviours of manufactured devices. Moravec's paradox. Multi-task knowing - Solving multiple maker discovering tasks at the exact same time. Neural scaling law - Statistical law in device knowing. Outline of expert system - Overview of and topical guide to expert system. Transhumanism - Philosophical motion. Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or kind of artificial intelligence. Transfer knowing - Artificial intelligence method. Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors. Hardware for expert system - Hardware specifically created and enhanced for artificial intelligence. Weak synthetic intelligence - Form of expert system.
Notes

^ a b See listed below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the academic meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the post Chinese space. ^ AI creator John McCarthy writes: "we can not yet identify in general what kinds of computational procedures we want to call intelligent. " [26] (For a discussion of some meanings of intelligence utilized by expert system researchers, see approach of expert system.). ^ The Lighthill report particularly slammed AI's "grand objectives" and led the taking apart of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA ended up being determined to money just "mission-oriented direct research study, rather than fundamental undirected research study". [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy writes "it would be an excellent relief to the rest of the employees in AI if the developers of new basic formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more secured form than has in some cases been the case." [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 regards to MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil introduced. ^ As defined in a basic AI book: "The assertion that machines might possibly act intelligently (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 in fact thinking (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 created to perform a single task. ^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to ensure that synthetic general intelligence benefits all of humankind. ^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's brand-new objective is creating 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 projects were identified 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 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 experiments with GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 reveals sparks of AGI. ^ Butler, Octavia E. (1993 ). Parable of the Sower. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4466-7550-5. All that you touch you alter. 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 Expert System". The New York City Times. The real risk is not AI itself but the method we deploy it. ^ "Impressed by synthetic intelligence? Experts say AGI is following, and it has 'existential' dangers". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might present existential threats to humanity. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The first superintelligence will be the last 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 risk of extinction from AI ought to be an international concern. ^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI professionals warn of threat of extinction from AI. ^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York Times. We are far from developing makers that can outthink us in general ways. ^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not provide an existential danger". Medium. There is no factor 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 full range 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 transforming our world - it is on everyone to make sure that it works out". 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 characteristics is based on the subjects covered by major AI books, consisting of: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998. ^ Johnson 1987. ^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press. ^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body shapes the way we think: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence". 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 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 occurs when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024. ^ a b Turing 1950. ^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1. ^ "Eugene Goostman is a genuine young boy - the Turing Test says so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ "Scientists dispute 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 everything from the bar exam to AP Biology. Here's a list of tough exams both AI variations have actually passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Artificial Intelligence Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Capitalize on It". Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is unreliable. The Winograd Schema is obsolete. Coffee is the answer". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder recommended testing an AI chatbot's capability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to determine human-like intelligence". Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). "Mustafa Suleyman: My new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Expert System" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (Second ed.). New York: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".). ^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Specifying Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Expert System, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the original 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 original 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 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 Expert system, 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 scientists and software engineers avoided the term expert system for worry of being seen as wild-eyed dreamers. ^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26 ^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the initial on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019. ^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20 ^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300. ^ Gubrud 1997 ^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science 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 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 original 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, 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 trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limits of device intelligence: Despite progress in maker intelligence, synthetic general intelligence is still a major obstacle". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL] ^ "Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing "Sparks" of AGI". Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023. ^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). "The Singularity Isn't Near". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014. ^ Winfield, Alan. "Artificial intelligence will not develop into a Frankenstein's beast". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 17 September 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2014. ^ Deane, George (2022 ). "Machines That Feel and Think: The Role of Affective Feelings and Mental Action in (Artificial) General Intelligence". Artificial Life. 28 (3 ): 289-309. doi:10.1162/ artl_a_00368. ISSN 1064-5462. PMID 35881678. S2CID 251069071. ^ a b c Clocksin 2003. ^ Fjelland, Ragnar (17 June 2020). "Why basic expert system will not be realized". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1 ): 1-9. doi:10.1057/ s41599-020-0494-4. hdl:11250/ 2726984. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 219710554. ^ McCarthy 2007b. ^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (23 November 2015). "The Doomsday Invention: Will artificial intelligence bring us utopia or destruction?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016. ^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future development in expert system: A study of skilled viewpoint. In Fundamental problems of artificial intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham. ^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, modified by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia ^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023. ^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023. ^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The creativity of machines: 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 artificial general intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture". Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the initial on 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022. ^ Pandey, Mohit; Fernandez, Michael; Gentile, Francesco; Isayev, Olexandr; Tropsha, Alexander; Stern, Abraham C.; Cherkasov, Artem (March 2022). "The transformational 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 oke.zone in Armstrong and Sotala 2012". AI Impacts (blog site). Archived from the original on 4 December 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2020. ^ a b Butz, Martin V. (1 March 2021). "Towards Strong AI". KI - Künstliche Intelligenz. 35 (1 ): 91-101. doi:10.1007/ s13218-021-00705-x. ISSN 1610-1987. S2CID 256065190. ^ Liu, Feng; Shi, Yong; Liu, Ying (2017 ). "Intelligence Quotient and Intelligence Grade of 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 wise as Siri - however a six-year-old beats both] (in German). Archived from the initial on 3 January 2019. Retrieved 2 January 2019. ^ Grossman, Gary (3 September 2020). "We're getting in the AI twilight zone between narrow and general AI". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020. Certainly, too, there are those who declare we are already seeing an early example of an AGI system in the recently announced GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. ... So is GPT-3 the very first example of an AGI system? This is debatable, however the consensus is that it is not AGI. ... If absolutely nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a happy medium between narrow and general AI. ^ Quach, Katyanna. "A developer developed an AI chatbot utilizing GPT-3 that helped a guy speak once again to his late fiancée. OpenAI shut it down". The Register. Archived from the initial on 16 October 2021. Retrieved 16 October 2021. ^ Wiggers, Kyle (13 May 2022), "DeepMind's brand-new AI can carry out over 600 jobs, from playing games to controlling robots", TechCrunch, archived from the initial on 16 June 2022, obtained 12 June 2022. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (22 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL] ^ Metz, Cade (1 May 2023). "' The Godfather of A.I.' Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ Bove, Tristan. "A.I. might measure up to human intelligence in 'just a couple of years,' says CEO of Google's primary A.I. research study lab". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024. ^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO states AI could pass human tests in five years". Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead". ^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). "Why everyone seems to disagree on how to define Artificial General Intelligence". Fast Company. ^ Nosta, John (5 January 2024). "The Accelerating Path to Artificial General Intelligence". Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 March 2024. ^ Hickey, Alex. "Whole Brain Emulation: A 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 project maps the human brain". euractiv. ^ Swaminathan, Nikhil (January-February 2011). "Glia-the other brain cells". Discover. Archived from the original on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014. ^ de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser 2008. A wide range of views in existing research, all of which need grounding to some degree ^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How publishing our minds to a computer system might end up being possible". The Conversation. Retrieved 8 November 2023. ^ Searle 1980 ^ For example: Russell & Norvig 2003, Oxford University Press Dictionary of Psychology Archived 3 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine (priced quote 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 curiosity by the field about why a program behaves 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 business's AI has actually come to life". The Washington Post. 11 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Nosta, John (18 December 2023). "Should Artificial Intelligence Have Rights?". Psychology Today. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Akst, Daniel (10 April 2023). "Should Robots With Artificial Intelligence Have Moral or Legal Rights?". The Wall Street Journal. ^ "Artificial General Intelligence - Do [es] the expense outweigh advantages?". 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "How we can Gain from Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) - Unite.AI". www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. "What Will Our Society Look Like When Expert System Is Everywhere?". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b Stevenson, Matt (8 October 2015). "Answers to Stephen Hawking's AMA are Here!". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ a b Bostrom, Nick (2017 ). " § Preferred order of arrival". Superintelligence: paths, dangers, methods (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom; New York City, New York City, USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Piper, Kelsey (19 November 2018). "How technological progress is making it likelier than ever that humans will damage ourselves". Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). "Climate change an 'existential security threat' to Australia, Senate inquiry states". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023. ^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York City, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6. ^ a b Ord, Toby (2020 ). "Chapter 5: Future Risks, Unaligned Artificial Intelligence". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9. ^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious". Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). "Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ a b "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of expert system - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'". The Independent (UK). Archived from the original on 25 September 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2014. ^ Herger, Mario. "The Gorilla Problem - Enterprise Garage". Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "The remarkable Facebook dispute in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI". The fascinating Facebook argument 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 disastrous AGI risk: a survey". Physica Scripta. 90 (1 ): 018001. doi:10.1088/ 0031-8949/90/ 1/018001. ISSN 0031-8949. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (First ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Chow, Andrew R.; Perrigo, Billy (16 February 2023). "The AI Arms Race Is On. Start Worrying". TIME. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Tetlow, Gemma (12 January 2017). "AI arms race dangers spiralling out of control, report cautions". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). "Experts disagree over danger positioned but artificial intelligence can not be ignored". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ "Humanity, Security & AI, Oh My! (with Ian Bremmer & Shuman Ghosemajumder)". CAFE. 20 July 2023. Retrieved 15 September 2023. ^ Hamblin, James (9 May 2014). "But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me?". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 12 December 2015. ^ Titcomb, James (30 October 2023). "Big Tech is stiring fears over AI, alert researchers". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain creator states big tech is lying about AI termination risk". 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 market impact potential 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 affected by AI. These are the tasks most impacted". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk says we need universal standard income due to the fact that 'in the future, manual labor will be a choice'". Business Insider. Archived from the initial on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Sources

UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the initial on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021. Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press. Clocksin, William (August 2003), "Artificial intelligence and the future", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007. Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous Search for Expert System. New York City, NY: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-02997-3. Darrach, Brad (20 November 1970), "Meet Shakey, the First Electronic Person", Life Magazine, pp. 58-68. Drachman, D. (2005 ), "Do we have brain to spare?", Neurology, 64 (12 ): 2004-2005, doi:10.1212/ 01. WNL.0000166914.38327. BB, PMID 15985565, S2CID 38482114. Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983 ), The Fifth Generation: Artificial Intelligence and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World, Michael Joseph, ISBN 978-0-7181-2401-4. Goertzel, Ben; Pennachin, Cassio, eds. (2006 ), Artificial General Intelligence (PDF), Springer, ISBN 978-3-5402-3733-4, archived from the original (PDF) on 20 March 2013. Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), "Human-level synthetic general intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a reaction to Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott's critique of Kurzweil", Expert system, vol. 171, no. 18, Special Review Issue, pp. 1161-1173, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.011, archived from the original on 7 January 2016, obtained 1 April 2009. Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), "Nanotechnology and International Security", Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the original on 29 May 2011, obtained 7 May 2011. Howe, J. (November 1994), Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University: a Perspective, archived from the initial on 17 August 2007, retrieved 30 August 2007. Johnson, Mark (1987 ), The body in the mind, Chicago, ISBN 978-0-2264-0317-5. Kurzweil, Ray (2005 ), The Singularity is Near, Viking Press. Lighthill, Professor Sir James (1973 ), "Expert System: A General Survey", Artificial Intelligence: a paper symposium, Science Research Council. Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Expert System: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving (fifth ed.), The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., p. 720, ISBN 978-0-8053-4780-7. McCarthy, John (2007b). What is Expert system?. Stanford University. The ultimate effort is to make computer system programs that can fix issues and accomplish goals worldwide as well as people. 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 original on 15 June 2006, obtained 23 June 2006 Nagel (1974 ), "What Is it Like to Be a Bat" (PDF), Philosophical Review, 83 (4 ): 435-50, doi:10.2307/ 2183914, JSTOR 2183914, archived (PDF) from the original on 16 October 2011, retrieved 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 ), Expert System: A New Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, ISBN 978-1-5586-0467-4 NRC (1999 ), "Developments in Artificial Intelligence", Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research, National Academy Press, archived from the original on 12 January 2008, obtained 29 September 2007 Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Logical Approach, New York City: Oxford University Press, archived from the original on 25 July 2009, recovered 6 December 2007 Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003 ), Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (second ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-790395-2 Sandberg, Anders; Boström, Nick (2008 ), Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap (PDF), Technical Report # 2008-3, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University, archived (PDF) from the initial on 25 March 2020, obtained 5 April 2009 Searle, John (1980 ), "Minds, Brains and Programs" (PDF), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (3 ): 417-457, doi:10.1017/ S0140525X00005756, S2CID 55303721, archived (PDF) from the initial on 17 March 2019, recovered 3 September 2020 Simon, H. A. (1965 ), The Shape of Automation for Men and Management, New York: Harper & Row Turing, Alan (October 1950). "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". Mind. 59 (236 ): 433-460. doi:10.1093/ mind/LIX.236.433. ISSN 1460-2113. JSTOR 2251299. S2CID 14636783.
de Vega, Manuel; Glenberg, Arthur; Graesser, Arthur, eds. (2008 ), Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on significance and cognition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-1992-1727-4 Wang, Pei; Goertzel, Ben (2007 ). "Introduction: Aspects of Artificial General Intelligence". Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms: Proceedings of the AGI Workshop 2006. IOS Press. pp. 1-16. ISBN 978-1-5860-3758-1. Archived from the original on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 - via ResearchGate.
Further reading

Aleksander, Igor (1996 ), Impossible Minds, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 978-1-8609-4036-1 Azevedo FA, Carvalho LR, Grinberg LT, Farfel J, et al. (April 2009), "Equal varieties of neuronal and nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled-up primate brain", The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 513 (5 ): 532-541, doi:10.1002/ cne.21974, PMID 19226510, S2CID 5200449, archived from the original on 18 February 2021, retrieved 4 September 2013 - via ResearchGate Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Expert System Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the original on 23 July 2014, retrieved 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 may be called "Dyson's Law") that "Any system simple sufficient to be understandable will not be complicated enough to act smartly, experienciacortazar.com.ar while any system made complex enough to act intelligently will be too complicated to understand." (p. 197.) Computer scientist Alex Pentland composes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead simple silly. They work, however they work by strength." (p. 198.). Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the initial on 26 July 2010, retrieved 25 July 2010. Gleick, James, "The Fate of Free Will" (review of Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will, Princeton University Press, 2023, 333 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. "Agency is what differentiates us from makers. For biological creatures, factor and purpose come from acting worldwide and experiencing the repercussions. Expert systems - disembodied, complete strangers to blood, sweat, and tears - have no occasion for that." (p. 30.). Halal, William E. "TechCast Article Series: The Automation of Thought" (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on 6 June 2013. - Halpern, Sue, "The Coming Tech Autocracy" (review of Verity Harding, AI Needs You: How We Can Change AI's Future and Save Our Own, Princeton University Press, 274 pp.; Gary Marcus, Taming Silicon Valley: How We Can Ensure That AI Works for Us, MIT Press, 235 pp.; Daniela Rus and Gregory Mone, The Mind's Mirror: Risk and Reward in the Age of AI, Norton, 280 pp.; Madhumita Murgia, Code Dependent: Residing In the Shadow of AI, Henry Holt, 311 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. "' We can't realistically anticipate that those who wish to get rich from AI are going to have the interests of the rest of us close at heart,' ... composes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't depend on federal governments driven by campaign financing contributions [from tech business] to press back.' ... Marcus information the demands that people must make from their federal governments and the tech companies. They include openness on how AI systems work; payment for people if their information [are] used to train LLMs (big language design) s and the right to permission to this use; and the ability to hold tech business liable for the damages they trigger by removing Section 230, imposing cash penalites, and passing stricter item liability laws ... Marcus also suggests ... that a new, AI-specific federal agency, similar to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, may supply the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law professor Chinmayi Sharma ... recommends ... develop [ing] a professional licensing regime for engineers that would work in a similar method to medical licenses, malpractice fits, and the Hippocratic oath in medication. 'What if, like medical professionals,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers likewise promised to do no damage?'" (p. 46.). Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), "Abstraction and reformulation in expert system", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 358, no. 1435, pp. 1197-1204, doi:10.1098/ rstb.2003.1317, PMC 1693218, PMID 12903653. Hughes-Castleberry, Kenna, "A Murder Mystery Puzzle: The literary puzzle Cain's Jawbone, which has stymied people for decades, reveals the limitations 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 unbelievable feats, their capabilities are quite limited by the amount of context they get. This [...] could trigger [troubles] for scientists who intend to utilize them to do things such as analyze ancient languages. Sometimes, there are few historic records on long-gone civilizations to function as training data for such a purpose." (p. 82.). Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: People now utilize A.I. to generate phony videos indistinguishable from real ones. How much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we indicate practical videos produced using artificial intelligence that in fact deceive people, then they hardly exist. The fakes aren't deep, and the deeps aren't phony. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in basic, running in our media as counterfeited proof. Their function much better looks like that of cartoons, especially smutty ones." (p. 59.). - Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We must avoid humanizing machine-learning designs used in clinical research", Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81. Lepore, Jill, "The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a device a discussion?", The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16. Marcus, Gary, "Artificial Confidence: Even the newest, buzziest systems of artificial 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 initial 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 Expert system, presented and distributed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California. Press, Eyal, "In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition technology lead cops to ignore contradictory proof?", 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 need real humanlike reasoning or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT appeared unable to reason rationally and tried to depend on its vast database of ... truths originated 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 unreliable. Rules-based systems can not deal with situations their programmers did not expect. Learning systems are limited by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have currently caused tragedy. Advanced auto-pilot functions in cars and trucks, although they carry out well in some situations, have actually driven cars without alerting into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked cars. In the wrong situation, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an instant. When an enemy is trying to manipulate and hack an AI system, the risks 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 brand-new technologies however rely on the timelelss human propensity to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.). Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.