Artificial General Intelligence (#3) · Issues · Barry Panton / 246

Artificial General Intelligence

Artificial basic intelligence (AGI) is a kind of synthetic intelligence (AI) that matches or exceeds human cognitive capabilities throughout a wide variety of cognitive tasks. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is restricted to particular tasks. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that significantly goes beyond human cognitive abilities. AGI is considered one of the definitions of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a primary goal of AI research and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 survey recognized 72 active AGI research and development tasks throughout 37 countries. [4]
The timeline for attaining AGI stays a topic of continuous debate amongst scientists and experts. Since 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or years; others maintain it might take a century or longer; a minority believe it may never be achieved; and another minority declares that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has actually expressed issues about the fast development towards AGI, recommending it might be accomplished sooner than lots of anticipate. [7]
There is dispute on the exact definition of AGI and relating to whether modern big language designs (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early forms of AGI. [8] AGI is a common topic in sci-fi and futures research studies. [9] [10]
Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential danger. [11] [12] [13] Many specialists on AI have mentioned that reducing the danger of human termination positioned by AGI needs to be a global priority. [14] [15] Others find the development of AGI to be too remote to provide such a risk. [16] [17]
Terminology

AGI is also called strong AI, [18] [19] full AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level smart AI, or general smart action. [21]
Some academic 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 solve one specific issue but lacks general cognitive abilities. [22] [19] Some scholastic sources utilize "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the same sense as humans. [a]
Related concepts include synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical type of AGI that is a lot more normally smart than people, [23] while the idea of transformative AI associates with AI having a big effect on society, for example, similar to the farming or commercial revolution. [24]
A framework for classifying AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They specify 5 levels of AGI: emerging, proficient, specialist, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a proficient AGI is specified as an AI that surpasses 50% of experienced adults in a broad variety of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. a synthetic superintelligence) is similarly defined but with a threshold of 100%. They consider big language designs 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 well-known meanings, and some scientists disagree with the more popular methods. [b]
Intelligence characteristics

Researchers typically hold that intelligence is needed to do all of the following: [27]
reason, use method, resolve puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability represent knowledge, including good sense understanding strategy find out

communicate in natural language
if necessary, integrate these abilities in completion of any given objective

Many interdisciplinary techniques (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) think about extra characteristics such as imagination (the ability to form unique mental images and principles) [28] and autonomy. [29]
Computer-based systems that display much of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated thinking, choice support system, robot, evolutionary computation, intelligent agent). There is dispute about whether modern AI systems possess them to an adequate degree.

Physical traits

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

Several tests indicated to confirm human-level AGI have been considered, consisting of: [33] [34]
The idea of the test is that the maker needs to attempt and pretend to be a guy, by answering questions put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is fairly persuading. A substantial portion of a jury, who ought to not be skilled about machines, must be taken in by the pretence. [37]
AI-complete problems

An issue is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is thought that in order to solve it, one would need to carry out AGI, since the solution is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]
There are numerous issues that have actually been conjectured to require basic intelligence to fix along with humans. Examples consist of computer vision, natural language understanding, and handling unanticipated scenarios while resolving any real-world problem. [48] Even a particular task like translation requires a machine to read and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (reason), comprehend the context (knowledge), and consistently replicate the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these issues need to be solved at the same time in order to reach human-level maker efficiency.

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

Classical AI

Modern AI research started in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI researchers were encouraged that synthetic general intelligence was possible and that it would exist in just 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 motivation for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers thought they could develop by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was a specialist [53] on the job of making HAL 9000 as practical as possible according to the consensus forecasts of the time. He stated in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of creating 'expert system' will substantially be solved". [54]
Several classical AI jobs, such as Doug Lenat's Cyc job (that began 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 undervalued the trouble of the project. Funding companies ended up being skeptical of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce helpful "used AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project revived interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that included AGI objectives like "carry on a table talk". [58] In action to this and the success of professional systems, both market and federal 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 satisfied. [60] For the 2nd time in twenty years, AI researchers who forecasted the impending accomplishment of AGI had been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a reputation for making vain pledges. They ended up being hesitant to make predictions at all [d] and avoided reference of "human level" synthetic intelligence for worry of being labeled "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]
Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI accomplished commercial success and scholastic respectability by focusing on specific sub-problems where AI can produce proven outcomes and industrial applications, such as speech acknowledgment and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now utilized thoroughly throughout the technology industry, and research study in this vein is greatly moneyed in both academic community and market. Since 2018 [update], advancement in this field was considered an emerging trend, and a mature stage was anticipated to be reached in more than ten years. [64]
At the millenium, numerous mainstream AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI might be developed by combining programs that fix various sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:

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

The expectation has often been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow fulfill "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding considerations in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is really just 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 be reached by this path (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we ought to even try to reach such a level, because it looks as if arriving would just total up to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic meanings (thereby merely minimizing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer system). [66]
Modern synthetic basic intelligence research

The term "synthetic basic intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation of the ramifications of fully automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI representative increases "the ability to please objectives in a large range of environments". [68] This kind of AGI, identified by the ability to maximise a mathematical definition of intelligence rather than show human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal artificial intelligence. [70]
The term AGI was re-introduced and popularized by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research activity in 2006 was explained by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and initial outcomes". The first summer season school in AGI was organized in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The first university course was provided in 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 including a number of visitor speakers.

Since 2023 [upgrade], a little number of computer scientists 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 allowing AI to constantly discover and innovate like human beings do.

Feasibility

As of 2023, the advancement and potential accomplishment of AGI stays a subject of extreme argument within the AI neighborhood. While conventional agreement held that AGI was a far-off objective, recent developments have actually led some scientists and industry figures to declare that early types of AGI may already exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon hypothesized in 1965 that "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do". This forecast failed to come true. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century since it would need "unforeseeable and essentially unforeseeable advancements" 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 expert system is as broad as the gulf between current space flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]
A further challenge is the absence of clarity in specifying what intelligence involves. Does it require awareness? Must it show the ability to set goals in addition to pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as planning, thinking, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence need explicitly reproducing the brain and its particular professors? Does it need feelings? [81]
Most AI scientists believe strong AI can be achieved in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of attaining strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who believe human-level AI will be accomplished, however that the present level of progress is such that a date can not precisely be forecasted. [84] AI specialists' views on the expediency of AGI wax and wane. Four surveys conducted in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the mean quote amongst specialists for when they would be 50% confident AGI would show up was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the professionals, 16.5% responded to with "never ever" when asked the same concern however with a 90% self-confidence instead. [85] [86] Further current AGI progress 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 timespan there is a strong bias towards anticipating the arrival of human-level AI as between 15 and 25 years from the time the forecast was made". They examined 95 predictions made in between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]
In 2023, Microsoft researchers published a detailed assessment of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it might reasonably be deemed an early (yet still incomplete) variation of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 exceeds 99% of humans on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]
Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig composed in 2023 that a considerable level of general intelligence has already been accomplished with frontier designs. They wrote that unwillingness to this view comes from 4 main reasons: a "healthy suspicion about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or techniques", a "commitment to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "issue about the financial ramifications of AGI". [91]
2023 likewise marked the introduction of large multimodal designs (big language models capable of processing or generating multiple modalities 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 respond". According to Mira Murati, this ability to think before responding represents a new, additional paradigm. It enhances design outputs by investing more computing power when creating the response, whereas the model scaling paradigm improves outputs by increasing the design size, training information and training compute power. [93] [94]
An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the company had actually accomplished AGI, mentioning, "In my opinion, we have currently achieved AGI and it's a lot more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "better than any human at any task", it is "better than most human beings at a lot of jobs." He also resolved criticisms that big language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their learning process to the clinical method of observing, hypothesizing, and confirming. These statements have sparked argument, as they depend on a broad and unconventional meaning of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models show exceptional adaptability, they may not completely fulfill this requirement. Notably, Kazemi's comments came quickly after OpenAI removed "AGI" from the terms of its collaboration with Microsoft, triggering speculation about the company's strategic objectives. [95]
Timescales

Progress in expert system has actually traditionally gone through durations of fast development separated by periods when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were fundamental advances in hardware, software application or both to create space for additional progress. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware offered in the twentieth century was not adequate to carry out 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 required before a really flexible AGI is constructed vary from 10 years to over a century. Since 2007 [update], the agreement in the AGI research community appeared to be that the timeline gone over by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have actually given a large range of opinions on whether development will be this fast. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions found a bias towards anticipating that the beginning of AGI would occur within 16-26 years for modern and historical forecasts alike. That paper has actually been slammed for how it categorized opinions as specialist or non-expert. [104]
In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton developed a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competition with a top-5 test error 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 considered as the initial ground-breaker of the present deep knowing wave. [105]
In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu carried out intelligence tests on publicly available and freely available weak AI such as Google AI, Apple's Siri, and others. At the optimum, these AIs reached an IQ value of about 47, which corresponds roughly to a six-year-old kid in first grade. A grownup pertains to about 100 usually. Similar tests were brought out in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching a maximum value of 27. [106] [107]
In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language design capable of carrying out numerous varied jobs without specific 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 considered 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 supplied a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested modifications to the chatbot to abide by their security standards; 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 different jobs. [110]
In 2023, Microsoft Research released a study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it showed more basic intelligence than previous AI designs and showed human-level efficiency in jobs covering several domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study stimulated a dispute on whether GPT-4 could be thought about an early, insufficient version of synthetic basic intelligence, stressing the need for more exploration and evaluation of such systems. [111]
In 2023, the AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton stated that: [112]
The concept that this things might actually get smarter than people - a couple of people believed that, [...] But most people believed it was way off. And I thought it was way off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years or even longer away. Obviously, I no longer believe that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly stated that "The progress in the last few years has actually been pretty unbelievable", which he sees no reason why it would slow down, expecting AGI within a decade or even a couple of years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, specified his expectation that within five years, AI would be capable of passing any test a minimum of as well as people. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI worker, estimated AGI by 2027 to be "strikingly possible". [115]
Whole brain emulation

While the advancement of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is thought about the most appealing path to AGI, [116] [117] whole brain emulation can function as an alternative method. With whole brain simulation, a brain design is built by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and after that copying and simulating it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation model must be adequately faithful to the original, so that it acts in virtually the very same way as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a type of brain simulation that is talked about in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study purposes. It has been talked about in expert system research [103] as an approach to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that could provide the required comprehensive understanding are enhancing quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] anticipates that a map of enough quality will appear on a similar timescale to the computing power required to replicate it.

Early approximates

For low-level brain simulation, a really powerful cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be needed, offered the huge quantity of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells has on average 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other nerve cells. The brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, supporting by adulthood. Estimates differ for an adult, ranging from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A price quote of the brain's processing power, based upon a simple switch design for nerve cell activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]
In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at numerous quotes for the hardware needed to equate to the human brain and adopted a figure of 1016 calculations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "computation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a procedure utilized to rate existing supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" 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 readily available at some point in between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid development in computer system power at the time of composing continued.

Current research study

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

Criticisms of simulation-based techniques

The synthetic neuron design assumed by Kurzweil and utilized in numerous current synthetic neural network executions is simple compared to biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely have to capture the comprehensive cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, presently understood only in broad outline. The overhead presented by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (specifically on a molecular scale) would require computational powers numerous orders of magnitude bigger than Kurzweil's price quote. In addition, the quotes do not represent glial cells, which are understood to contribute in cognitive processes. [125]
An essential criticism of the simulated brain technique originates from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is an important aspect of human intelligence and is required to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is right, any completely functional brain design will require to include 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, but it is unknown whether this would be sufficient.

Philosophical point of view

"Strong AI" as defined in viewpoint

In 1980, theorist John Searle coined the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese space argument. [128] He proposed a difference between 2 hypotheses about expert system: [f]
Strong AI hypothesis: An expert system system can have "a mind" and "awareness". Weak AI hypothesis: A synthetic intelligence system can (only) act like it thinks and has a mind and consciousness.
The first one he called "strong" because it makes a more powerful declaration: it presumes something unique has taken place to the machine that exceeds those capabilities that we can evaluate. The behaviour of a "weak AI" maker would be specifically identical to a "strong AI" device, however the latter would likewise have subjective mindful experience. This usage is likewise typical in academic AI research study and textbooks. [129]
In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil use the term "strong AI" to imply "human level synthetic general intelligence". [102] This is not the like Searle's strong AI, unless it is presumed that awareness is required for human-level AGI. Academic thinkers such as Searle do not think that holds true, and to most expert system scientists the concern is out-of-scope. [130]
Mainstream AI is most thinking about how a program acts. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they do not care if you call it genuine or a simulation." [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no need to understand if it in fact has mind - indeed, there would be no way to inform. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is comparable to the declaration "synthetic general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI scientists take the weak AI hypothesis for approved, and don't care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research study, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 various things.

Consciousness

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

Sentience (or "phenomenal awareness"): The capability to "feel" perceptions or emotions subjectively, rather than the ability to factor about perceptions. Some thinkers, such as David Chalmers, utilize the term "awareness" to refer specifically to remarkable awareness, which is roughly equivalent to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience occurs is known as the difficult problem of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel explained in 1974 that it "seems like" something to be conscious. If we are not mindful, then it does not seem 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 feel like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat seems conscious (i.e., has consciousness) but a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had accomplished sentience, though this claim was extensively challenged by other professionals. [135]
Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a different individual, specifically to be consciously knowledgeable about one's own ideas. This is opposed to merely being the "topic of one's thought"-an os 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 usually imply when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]
These characteristics have a moral dimension. AI sentience would trigger concerns of welfare and legal defense, likewise to animals. [136] Other aspects of awareness related to cognitive abilities are likewise pertinent to the idea of AI rights. [137] Determining how to integrate sophisticated AI with existing legal and social structures is an emergent concern. [138]
Benefits

AGI could have a wide variety of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI could help mitigate numerous issues worldwide such as hunger, poverty and illness. [139]
AGI could improve productivity and efficiency in the majority of tasks. For instance, in public health, AGI might accelerate medical research, especially versus cancer. [140] It could take care of the elderly, [141] and equalize access to rapid, high-quality medical diagnostics. It might offer fun, cheap and personalized education. [141] The need to work to subsist could end up being outdated if the wealth produced is correctly rearranged. [141] [142] This likewise raises the concern of the place of humans in a drastically automated society.

AGI could also assist to make reasonable decisions, and to expect and prevent catastrophes. It might also help to gain the advantages of potentially disastrous technologies such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while preventing the associated dangers. [143] If an AGI's primary objective is to prevent existential catastrophes such as human extinction (which could be difficult if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being real), [144] it could take steps to dramatically reduce the dangers [143] while minimizing the effect of these procedures on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential risks

AGI may represent several kinds of existential danger, which are risks that threaten "the premature termination of Earth-originating smart life or the irreversible and drastic damage of its potential for desirable future development". [145] The risk of human extinction from AGI has been the topic of lots of disputes, however there is also the possibility that the development of AGI would cause a completely problematic future. Notably, it might be used to spread out and maintain the set of worths of whoever establishes it. If mankind still has moral blind spots similar to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, avoiding ethical development. [146] Furthermore, AGI could facilitate mass security and brainwashing, which could be used to produce a steady repressive worldwide totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is likewise a threat for the machines themselves. If machines that are sentient or otherwise worthy of moral factor to consider are mass produced in the future, engaging in a civilizational path that forever disregards their welfare and interests could be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI could improve humanity's future and help in reducing other existential risks, Toby Ord calls these existential risks "an argument for proceeding with due care", not for "deserting AI". [147]
Risk of loss of control and human extinction

The thesis that AI presents an existential danger for humans, which this threat requires more attention, is questionable but has actually been endorsed in 2023 by many public figures, AI researchers and CEOs of AI companies such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis and Sam Altman. [151] [152]
In 2014, Stephen Hawking slammed extensive indifference:

So, dealing with possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing whatever possible to guarantee the very best result, right? Wrong. If an exceptional alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll show up in a few years,' would we simply reply, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is basically what is occurring with AI. [153]
The potential fate of mankind has actually often been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast mentions that higher intelligence allowed mankind to dominate gorillas, which are now susceptible in ways that they might not have actually anticipated. As a result, the gorilla has become a threatened species, not out of malice, but simply as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]
The skeptic Yann LeCun considers that AGIs will have no desire to control mankind which we must be cautious not to anthropomorphize them and interpret their intents as we would for human beings. He said that individuals will not be "smart enough to design super-intelligent devices, yet ridiculously stupid to the point of giving it moronic goals without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the idea of instrumental merging suggests that nearly whatever their goals, smart representatives will have factors to attempt to make it through and obtain more power as intermediary steps to accomplishing these objectives. And that this does not require having emotions. [156]
Many scholars who are worried about existential danger advocate for more research study into resolving the "control problem" to address the concern: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers carry out to maximise the likelihood that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, instead of devastating, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is complicated by the AI arms race (which might cause a race to the bottom of security preventative measures in order to launch products before competitors), [159] and the use of AI in weapon systems. [160]
The thesis that AI can posture existential danger also has critics. Skeptics generally state that AGI is not likely in the short-term, or that concerns about AGI distract from other issues associated with current AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for many individuals outside of the innovation market, existing chatbots and LLMs are currently viewed as though they were AGI, causing further misunderstanding and worry. [162]
Skeptics sometimes charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an unreasonable belief in the possibility of superintelligence changing an unreasonable belief in a supreme God. [163] Some researchers think that the communication campaigns on AI existential threat by particular AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might be an at effort at regulatory capture and to pump up interest in their items. [164] [165]
In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, along with other market leaders and scientists, issued a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the danger of termination from AI should be a global priority along with other societal-scale dangers such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]
Mass joblessness

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

According to Stephen Hawking, the result of automation on the quality of life will depend on how the wealth will be rearranged: [142]
Everyone can delight in a life of glamorous leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or the majority of people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby versus wealth redistribution. So far, the pattern seems to be toward the second choice, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

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

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities comparable to those of the animal or human brain AI impact AI safety - Research location on making AI safe and helpful 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 initiative announced by the Obama administration China Brain Project Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre General game playing - Ability of artificial intelligence to play various games Generative synthetic intelligence - AI system capable of creating content in reaction to prompts Human Brain Project - Scientific research study job Intelligence amplification - Use of details innovation to enhance human intelligence (IA). Machine principles - Moral behaviours of man-made machines. Moravec's paradox. Multi-task learning - Solving numerous machine finding out tasks at the exact same time. Neural scaling law - Statistical law in artificial intelligence. Outline of expert system - Overview of and topical guide to synthetic intelligence. Transhumanism - Philosophical movement. Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or form of synthetic intelligence. Transfer knowing - Artificial intelligence strategy. Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors. Hardware for expert system - Hardware specially developed and optimized for expert system. Weak synthetic intelligence - Form of artificial intelligence.
Notes

^ a b See below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the scholastic definition of "strong AI" and weak AI in the article Chinese space. ^ AI founder John McCarthy writes: "we can not yet define in general what type of computational procedures we wish to call smart. " [26] (For a conversation of some definitions of intelligence utilized by synthetic intelligence researchers, see viewpoint of expert system.). ^ The Lighthill report specifically slammed AI's "grandiose goals" and led the taking apart of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became determined to fund only "mission-oriented direct research, instead of standard undirected research". [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy writes "it would be a terrific relief to the remainder of the workers in AI if the developers of brand-new basic formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more guarded kind than has actually in some cases held true." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is utilized. More just recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would approximately correspond to 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented. ^ As defined in a basic AI book: "The assertion that machines could potentially act intelligently (or, perhaps much better, act as if they were smart) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by theorists, and the assertion that machines that do so are actually thinking (instead of mimicing 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 developed to carry out a single job. ^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our objective is to guarantee that synthetic general intelligence advantages all of humankind. ^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's brand-new goal is producing synthetic general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to develop AI that is better than human-level at all of the human senses. ^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D jobs were recognized as being active in 2020. ^ a b c "AI timelines: What do specialists in expert system expect for historydb.date 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 leader Geoffrey Hinton stops Google and cautions of danger ahead". The New York Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is difficult to see how you can avoid 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 shows 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 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 Expert System". The New York City Times. The genuine threat is not AI itself but the way we deploy it. ^ "Impressed by expert system? Experts state AGI is following, and it has 'existential' threats". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might present existential risks 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 innovation that mankind requires to make. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. Mitigating the threat of termination from AI need to be an international top priority. ^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts alert of danger of termination from AI. ^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York City Times. We are far from creating machines that can outthink us in general methods. ^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not provide an existential risk". Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential hazard. ^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260. ^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the original on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil describes strong AI as "maker intelligence with the full variety of human intelligence.". ^ "The Age of 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 sign system hypothesis. ^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the original on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007. ^ "What is synthetic superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023. ^ "Expert system is transforming our world - it is on all of us 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 accomplishing AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat. ^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007. ^ This list of intelligent qualities is based upon 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 City: Academic Press. ^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body forms the method we think: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: The principle of skills". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reconsidered: The concept 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 initial on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014. ^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the 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 takes place when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024. ^ a b Turing 1950. ^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1. ^ "Eugene Goostman is a real young boy - the Turing Test says so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ "Scientists challenge whether computer system 'Eugene Goostman' passed Turing test". BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). "People can not identify GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC] ^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI designs like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing whatever from the bar exam to AP Biology. Here's a list of difficult exams both AI versions have actually passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Expert System Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Take Advantage Of It". Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is undependable. The Winograd Schema is outdated. Coffee is the response". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder recommended checking 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: 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 initial on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022. ^ Simon 1965, p. 96 priced quote in Crevier 1993, p. 109. ^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008. ^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), 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 ). "Respond 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 City Times. Archived from the original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer scientists and software application engineers avoided the term synthetic intelligence for fear of being deemed wild-eyed dreamers. ^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26 ^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019. ^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20 ^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300. ^ Gubrud 1997 ^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based Upon Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the original on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022. ^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the 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., through 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 school: June 22 - July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009". Archived from the original on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the 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 original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limits of maker intelligence: Despite development in maker intelligence, artificial basic intelligence is still a major difficulty". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs 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 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 synthetic intelligence 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 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 expert system: A survey of expert viewpoint. In Fundamental problems of expert system (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham. ^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, 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 originality of devices: AI takes the Torrance Test". Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185. ^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema. ^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). "Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024". Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024. ^ "Introducing OpenAI o1-preview". OpenAI. 12 September 2024. ^ Knight, Will. "OpenAI Announces a New AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024. ^ "OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved". Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024. ^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024. ^ "Next-Gen AI: OpenAI and Meta's Leap Towards Reasoning Machines". Unite.ai. 19 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024. ^ James, Alex P. (2022 ). "The Why, What, and How of Artificial General Intelligence Chip Development". IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. 14 (2 ): 333-347. arXiv:2012.06338. doi:10.1109/ TCDS.2021.3069871. ISSN 2379-8920. S2CID 228376556. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022. ^ Pei, Jing; Deng, Lei; Song, Sen; Zhao, Mingguo; Zhang, Youhui; Wu, Shuang; Wang, Guanrui; Zou, Zhe; Wu, Zhenzhi; He, Wei; Chen, Feng; Deng, Ning; Wu, Si; Wang, Yu; Wu, Yujie (2019 ). "Towards artificial basic 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 in Armstrong and Sotala 2012". AI Impacts (blog site). Archived from the original on 4 December 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2020. ^ a b Butz, Martin V. (1 March 2021). "Towards Strong AI". KI - Künstliche Intelligenz. 35 (1 ): 91-101. doi:10.1007/ s13218-021-00705-x. ISSN 1610-1987. S2CID 256065190. ^ Liu, Feng; Shi, Yong; Liu, Ying (2017 ). "Intelligence Quotient and Intelligence Grade of Expert System". Annals of Data Science. 4 (2 ): 179-191. arXiv:1709.10242. doi:10.1007/ s40745-017-0109-0. S2CID 37900130. ^ Brien, Jörn (5 October 2017). "Google-KI doppelt so schlau wie Siri" [Google AI is twice as clever as Siri - but a six-year-old beats both] (in German). Archived from the original on 3 January 2019. Retrieved 2 January 2019. ^ Grossman, Gary (3 September 2020). "We're getting in 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 just recently revealed GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. ... So is GPT-3 the first example of an AGI system? This is arguable, however the agreement is that it is not AGI. ... If nothing else, GPT-3 informs us there is a happy medium between narrow and general AI. ^ Quach, Katyanna. "A developer built an AI chatbot utilizing GPT-3 that helped a male 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 new AI can carry out over 600 jobs, from playing games to managing robots", TechCrunch, archived from the initial on 16 June 2022, recovered 12 June 2022. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (22 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL] ^ Metz, Cade (1 May 2023). "' The Godfather of A.I.' Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ Bove, Tristan. "A.I. could match human intelligence in 'simply a few years,' says CEO of Google's primary A.I. research study laboratory". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024. ^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO says AI might pass human tests in 5 years". Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead". ^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). "Why everybody seems to disagree on how to define Artificial General Intelligence". Fast Company. ^ Nosta, John (5 January 2024). "The Accelerating Path to Artificial General Intelligence". Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 March 2024. ^ Hickey, Alex. "Whole Brain Emulation: A Huge Step for Neuroscience". Tech Brew. Retrieved 8 November 2023. ^ Sandberg & Boström 2008. ^ Drachman 2005. ^ a b Russell & Norvig 2003. ^ Moravec 1988, p. 61. ^ Moravec 1998. ^ Holmgaard Mersh, Amalie (15 September 2023). "Decade-long European research job 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 large range 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 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 (priced quote in "AITopics"),. Will Biological Computers Enable Artificially Intelligent Machines to Become Persons? Archived 13 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Anthony Tongen.

^ a b c Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 947. ^ though see Explainable synthetic intelligence for interest by the field about why a program acts the method it does. ^ Chalmers, David J. (9 August 2023). "Could a Big Language Model Be Conscious?". Boston Review. ^ Seth, Anil. "Consciousness". New Scientist. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Nagel 1974. ^ "The Google engineer who believes the 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 expense surpass benefits?". 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "How we can Benefit from Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) - Unite.AI". www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. "What Will Our Society Look Like When Expert System Is Everywhere?". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b Stevenson, Matt (8 October 2015). "Answers to Stephen Hawking's AMA are Here!". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ a b Bostrom, Nick (2017 ). " § Preferred order of arrival". Superintelligence: paths, dangers, methods (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom; New York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Piper, Kelsey (19 November 2018). "How technological development is making it likelier than ever that human beings will ruin ourselves". Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). "Climate change an 'existential security threat' to Australia, Senate questions says". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023. ^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York City, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6. ^ a b Ord, Toby (2020 ). "Chapter 5: Future Risks, Unaligned Expert System". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9. ^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious". Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). "Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ a b "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of synthetic intelligence - however are we taking AI seriously enough?'". The Independent (UK). Archived from the original on 25 September 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2014. ^ Herger, Mario. "The Gorilla Problem - Enterprise Garage". Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "The interesting Facebook debate in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the threats of strong AI". The interesting Facebook debate in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI (in French). Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Will Expert System Doom The Human Race Within The Next 100 Years?". HuffPost. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sotala, Kaj; Yampolskiy, Roman V. (19 December 2014). "Responses to catastrophic AGI 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 threats spiralling out of control, report warns". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). "Experts disagree over risk posed but expert system can not be overlooked". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ "Humanity, Security & AI, Oh My! (with Ian Bremmer & Shuman Ghosemajumder)". CAFE. 20 July 2023. Retrieved 15 September 2023. ^ Hamblin, James (9 May 2014). "But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me?". The Atlantic. Archived from the initial on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 12 December 2015. ^ Titcomb, James (30 October 2023). "Big Tech is stiring fears over AI, alert researchers". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain creator states huge tech is lying about AI termination danger". 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 look at the labor market effect capacity of large language designs". OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). "OpenAI states 80% of workers might see their jobs impacted by AI. These are the jobs most affected". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk says we require universal fundamental income because 'in the future, physical work 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 initial on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021. Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press. Clocksin, William (August 2003), "Artificial intelligence and the future", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007. Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous Search for Expert System. New York City, NY: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-02997-3. Darrach, Brad (20 November 1970), "Meet Shakey, the First Electronic Person", Life Magazine, pp. 58-68. Drachman, D. (2005 ), "Do we have brain to spare?", Neurology, 64 (12 ): 2004-2005, doi:10.1212/ 01. WNL.0000166914.38327. BB, PMID 15985565, S2CID 38482114. Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983 ), The Fifth Generation: Expert System and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World, Michael Joseph, ISBN 978-0-7181-2401-4. Goertzel, Ben; Pennachin, Cassio, eds. (2006 ), Artificial General Intelligence (PDF), Springer, ISBN 978-3-5402-3733-4, archived from the original (PDF) on 20 March 2013. Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), "Human-level artificial basic intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a reaction to Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott's review of Kurzweil", Expert system, vol. 171, no. 18, Special Review Issue, pp. 1161-1173, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.011, archived from the initial on 7 January 2016, obtained 1 April 2009. Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), "Nanotechnology and International Security", Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the original on 29 May 2011, obtained 7 May 2011. Howe, J. (November 1994), Expert System at Edinburgh University: a Point of view, 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 ), Artificial Intelligence: 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 supreme effort is to make computer system programs that can solve issues and accomplish objectives worldwide as well as people. Moravec, Hans (1988 ), Mind Children, Harvard University Press Moravec, Hans (1998 ), "When will computer hardware match the human brain?", Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 1, archived from the initial on 15 June 2006, recovered 23 June 2006 Nagel (1974 ), "What Is it Like to Be a Bat" (PDF), Philosophical Review, 83 (4 ): 435-50, doi:10.2307/ 2183914, JSTOR 2183914, archived (PDF) from the 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 Artificial Intelligence", Funding a Transformation: 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: Oxford University Press, archived from the initial on 25 July 2009, obtained 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 original 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, retrieved 3 September 2020 Simon, H. A. (1965 ), The Shape of Automation for Men and Management, New York City: Harper & Row Turing, Alan (October 1950). "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". Mind. 59 (236 ): 433-460. doi:10.1093/ mind/LIX.236.433. ISSN 1460-2113. JSTOR 2251299. S2CID 14636783.
de Vega, Manuel; Glenberg, Arthur; Graesser, Arthur, eds. (2008 ), Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on significance and cognition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-1992-1727-4 Wang, Pei; Goertzel, Ben (2007 ). "Introduction: Aspects of Artificial General Intelligence". Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms: Proceedings of the AGI Workshop 2006. IOS Press. pp. 1-16. ISBN 978-1-5860-3758-1. Archived from the original on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 - by means of 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, recovered 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, retrieved 31 August 2012 Cukier, Kenneth, "Ready for Robots? How to Think about the Future of AI", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 4 (July/August 2019), pp. 192-98. George Dyson, historian of computing, writes (in what might be called "Dyson's Law") that "Any system simple sufficient to be easy to understand will not be made complex enough to act smartly, while any system made complex enough to behave smartly will be too made complex to comprehend." (p. 197.) Computer researcher Alex Pentland writes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead simple silly. They work, however they work by brute force." (p. 198.). Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the original on 26 July 2010, obtained 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, reason and function come from acting on the planet and experiencing the consequences. 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 original (PDF) on 6 June 2013. - Halpern, Sue, "The Coming Tech Autocracy" (review of Verity Harding, AI Needs You: How We Can Change AI's Future and Save Our Own, Princeton University Press, 274 pp.; Gary Marcus, Taming Silicon Valley: How We Can Ensure That AI Works for Us, MIT Press, 235 pp.; Daniela Rus and Gregory Mone, The Mind's Mirror: Risk and Reward in the Age of AI, Norton, 280 pp.; Madhumita Murgia, Code Dependent: Living in the Shadow of AI, Henry Holt, 311 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. "' We can't reasonably expect that those who hope to get rich from AI are going to have the interests of the rest people close at heart,' ... writes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't count on federal governments driven by project finance contributions [from tech companies] to push back.' ... Marcus information the demands that residents must make from their governments and the tech companies. They consist of openness on how AI systems work; compensation for people if their data [are] used to train LLMs (big language design) s and the right to permission to this usage; and the capability to hold tech business liable for the harms they trigger by getting rid of Section 230, enforcing money penalites, and passing stricter product liability laws ... Marcus likewise recommends ... that a new, AI-specific federal company, similar to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, might supply the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law teacher Chinmayi Sharma ... suggests ... develop [ing] a professional licensing regime for engineers that would operate in a similar way to medical licenses, malpractice suits, and the Hippocratic oath in medicine. 'What if, like doctors,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers likewise promised to do no harm?'" (p. 46.). Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), "Abstraction and reformulation in artificial 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 people for years, reveals the limitations of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder mystery competition has actually revealed that although NLP (natural-language processing) models can extraordinary feats, their abilities are quite limited by the quantity of context they get. This [...] might cause [troubles] for researchers who intend to use them to do things such as analyze ancient languages. Sometimes, there are couple of historical records on long-gone civilizations to work as training data for such a function." (p. 82.). Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: People now utilize A.I. to produce fake videos equivalent from genuine ones. How much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we indicate sensible videos produced using expert system that actually trick people, then they barely exist. The phonies aren't deep, and the deeps aren't phony. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in basic, operating in our media as counterfeited evidence. Their function better resembles that of cartoons, particularly smutty ones." (p. 59.). - Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We must avoid humanizing machine-learning designs used in scientific research", Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81. Lepore, Jill, "The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a maker a discussion?", The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16. Marcus, Gary, "Artificial Confidence: Even the newest, buzziest systems of synthetic basic intelligence are stymmied by the same old issues", Scientific American, vol. 327, no. 4 (October 2022), pp. 42-45. McCarthy, John (October 2007), "From here to human-level AI", Artificial Intelligence, 171 (18 ): 1174-1182, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.009. McCorduck, Pamela (2004 ), Machines Who Think (2nd ed.), Natick, Massachusetts: A. K. Peters, ISBN 1-5688-1205-1. Moravec, Hans (1976 ), The Role of Raw Power in Intelligence, archived from the initial on 3 March 2016, retrieved 29 September 2007. Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1963 ), "GPS: A Program that Simulates Human Thought", in Feigenbaum, E. A.; Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, New York: McGraw-Hill. Omohundro, Steve (2008 ), The Nature of Self-Improving Expert system, 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 inconsistent evidence?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26. Roivainen, Eka, "AI's IQ: ChatGPT aced a [standard intelligence] test however showed that intelligence can not be measured by IQ alone", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 1 (July/August 2023), p. 7. "Despite its high IQ, ChatGPT stops working at tasks that require genuine humanlike reasoning or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT seemed unable to factor rationally and tried to count on its huge database of ... facts obtained 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 effective however undependable. Rules-based systems can not deal with circumstances their programmers did not prepare for. Learning systems are restricted by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have actually already led to disaster. Advanced auto-pilot features in automobiles, although they perform well in some scenarios, have driven cars without warning into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked cars. In the incorrect circumstance, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an instant. When an opponent is trying to control 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 made possible by brand-new technologies however depend on the timelelss human tendency to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.). Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.