Artificial General Intelligence

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a kind of artificial intelligence (AI) that matches or goes beyond human cognitive capabilities across a wide variety of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to specific jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, archmageriseswiki.com describes AGI that significantly goes beyond human cognitive abilities. AGI is thought about among the definitions of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a primary goal of AI research study and of companies such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 survey recognized 72 active AGI research study and advancement projects across 37 nations. [4]

The timeline for achieving AGI remains a subject of continuous argument among and specialists. Since 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or decades; others keep it might take a century or longer; a minority think it might never be attained; and another minority claims that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton has actually revealed issues about the fast progress towards AGI, recommending it might be attained sooner than many anticipate. [7]

There is argument on the specific definition of AGI and concerning whether modern large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early forms of AGI. [8] AGI is a typical topic in sci-fi and futures research studies. [9] [10]

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential threat. [11] [12] [13] Many experts on AI have specified that reducing the threat of human extinction positioned by AGI ought to be a global top priority. [14] [15] Others find the advancement of AGI to be too remote to present such a risk. [16] [17]

Terminology

AGI is also understood as strong AI, [18] [19] full AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level smart AI, or general intelligent action. [21]

Some academic sources reserve the term „strong AI“ for computer programs that experience life or awareness. [a] In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to fix one particular issue however does not have general cognitive abilities. [22] [19] Some scholastic sources use „weak AI“ to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the same sense as human beings. [a]

Related principles include artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical type of AGI that is much more generally smart than human beings, [23] while the concept of transformative AI connects to AI having a large influence on society, for example, similar to the farming or commercial revolution. [24]

A structure for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They define 5 levels of AGI: emerging, competent, professional, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a skilled AGI is specified as an AI that surpasses 50% of knowledgeable adults in a vast array of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is likewise defined but with a threshold of 100%. They consider big language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics

Various popular definitions of intelligence have actually been proposed. One of the leading propositions is the Turing test. However, there are other widely known definitions, and some scientists disagree with the more popular approaches. [b]

Intelligence qualities

Researchers generally hold that intelligence is required to do all of the following: [27]

factor, use technique, resolve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty
represent knowledge, including sound judgment understanding
plan
find out
– 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) think about additional traits such as imagination (the capability to form novel psychological images and concepts) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that exhibit much of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated thinking, decision support group, robot, evolutionary calculation, intelligent agent). There is argument about whether modern AI systems possess them to an adequate degree.

Physical characteristics

Other abilities are thought about desirable in intelligent systems, as they might affect intelligence or help in its expression. These include: [30]

– the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and
– the capability to act (e.g. relocation and control objects, modification location to check out, and so on).

This consists of the capability to find and react to hazard. [31]

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc) and the ability to act (e.g. move and control items, modification place to check out, and so on) can be desirable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly needed for an entity to certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that large language models (LLMs) might currently be or end up being AGI. Even from a less positive viewpoint on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for wiki.monnaie-libre.fr 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 never ever been proscribed a specific physical embodiment and hence does not require a capability for mobility or traditional „eyes and ears“. [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests suggested to verify human-level AGI have actually been considered, consisting of: [33] [34]

The concept of the test is that the machine needs to attempt and pretend to be a male, by addressing questions put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is reasonably convincing. A significant part of a jury, who must not be professional about machines, should 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 fix it, one would need to implement AGI, because the solution is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]

There are lots of problems that have actually been conjectured to require general intelligence to fix as well as human beings. Examples include computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unanticipated scenarios while fixing any real-world problem. [48] Even a specific task like translation requires a machine to check out and compose in both languages, follow the author’s argument (reason), comprehend the context (knowledge), and faithfully recreate the author’s initial intent (social intelligence). All of these problems require to be fixed concurrently in order to reach human-level device efficiency.

However, a number of these jobs can now be performed by contemporary big language designs. According to Stanford University’s 2024 AI index, AI has actually reached human-level efficiency on many criteria for checking out comprehension and visual reasoning. [49]

History

Classical AI

Modern AI research study started in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI researchers were persuaded that artificial general intelligence was possible and that it would exist in just a few decades. [51] AI leader Herbert A. Simon composed in 1965: „machines 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 believed they could produce by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was an expert [53] on the job of making HAL 9000 as practical as possible according to the agreement forecasts of the time. He said in 1967, „Within a generation … the problem of developing ‘expert system’ will considerably be resolved“. [54]

Several classical AI tasks, such as Doug Lenat’s Cyc job (that started in 1984), and Allen Newell’s Soar task, were directed at AGI.

However, in the early 1970s, it became obvious that scientists had actually grossly underestimated the problem of the task. Funding firms ended up being skeptical 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 objectives like „continue a casual discussion“. [58] In action to this and the success of specialist systems, both market and government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, self-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 20 years, AI researchers who anticipated the impending accomplishment of AGI had actually been mistaken. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a track record for making vain promises. They ended up being hesitant to make predictions at all [d] and avoided reference of „human level“ artificial intelligence for worry of being identified „wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI attained industrial success and scholastic respectability by focusing on specific sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable results and commercial applications, such as speech recognition and suggestion algorithms. [63] These „applied AI“ systems are now utilized extensively throughout the innovation industry, and research in this vein is heavily funded in both academia and market. Since 2018 [update], development in this field was thought about an emerging pattern, and a fully grown stage was expected to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]

At the millenium, lots of mainstream AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI could be established by combining programs that solve numerous sub-problems. Hans Moravec composed in 1988:

I am positive that this bottom-up route to artificial intelligence will one day fulfill the traditional top-down route over half way, ready to provide the real-world proficiency and the commonsense knowledge that has actually been so frustratingly evasive in thinking programs. Fully smart machines will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven joining the two efforts. [65]

However, even at the time, this was challenged. For instance, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the 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 someplace in between. If the grounding considerations in this paper are legitimate, 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 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 appears getting there would simply total up to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic significances (consequently simply decreasing ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]

Modern artificial basic intelligence research

The term „synthetic basic intelligence“ was utilized as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a discussion 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 increases „the capability to satisfy goals in a wide variety of environments“. [68] This type of AGI, identified by the ability to maximise a mathematical definition of intelligence instead of exhibit human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal expert system. [70]

The term AGI was re-introduced and promoted by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research study activity in 2006 was described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as „producing publications and preliminary outcomes“. The first summer season school in AGI was arranged in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university’s Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The 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, organized by Lex Fridman and featuring a number of guest speakers.

As of 2023 [update], a small number of computer scientists are active in AGI research study, and many add to a series of AGI conferences. However, significantly more scientists have an interest in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the concept of permitting AI to continuously learn and innovate like human beings do.

Feasibility

As of 2023, the advancement and prospective accomplishment of AGI remains a topic of extreme debate within the AI neighborhood. While conventional agreement held that AGI was a far-off goal, current improvements have led some scientists and market figures to declare that early forms of AGI may currently exist. [78] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon hypothesized in 1965 that „makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do“. This forecast stopped working to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen believed that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century because it would need „unforeseeable and basically unforeseeable breakthroughs“ and a „clinically deep understanding of cognition“. [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf in between modern-day computing and human-level synthetic intelligence is as large as the gulf between existing area flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A more challenge is the lack of clarity in defining what intelligence involves. Does it require awareness? Must it show the capability to set objectives along with pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are facilities such as planning, reasoning, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence require explicitly reproducing the brain and its particular faculties? Does it require emotions? [81]

Most AI scientists believe strong AI can be accomplished in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of achieving strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who believe human-level AI will be achieved, however that the present level of progress is such that a date can not precisely be anticipated. [84] AI professionals’ views on the feasibility of AGI wax and wane. Four polls conducted in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the typical quote among experts for when they would be 50% confident AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending on the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the professionals, 16.5% responded to with „never ever“ when asked the same question but with a 90% self-confidence rather. [85] [86] Further existing AGI progress factors to consider can be discovered above Tests for verifying human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute found that „over [a] 60-year amount of time there is a strong predisposition towards anticipating the arrival of human-level AI as in between 15 and 25 years from the time the forecast was made“. They examined 95 forecasts made in between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]

In 2023, Microsoft scientists published an in-depth assessment of GPT-4. They concluded: „Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4’s abilities, our company believe that it could fairly be seen as an early (yet still insufficient) variation of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system.“ [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outperforms 99% of human beings on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig composed in 2023 that a significant level of general intelligence has already been achieved with frontier models. They wrote that reluctance to this view comes from 4 main factors: a „healthy skepticism about metrics for AGI“, an „ideological commitment to alternative AI theories or methods“, a „commitment to human (or biological) exceptionalism“, or a „issue about the economic implications of AGI“. [91]

2023 also marked the emergence of big multimodal designs (big language designs capable of processing or creating several modalities such as text, audio, and images). [92]

In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the first of a series of models that „invest more time believing before they react“. According to Mira Murati, this capability to think before responding represents a brand-new, extra paradigm. It improves model outputs by spending more computing power when generating the answer, whereas the design scaling paradigm improves outputs by increasing the design size, training data and training compute power. [93] [94]

An OpenAI worker, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the company had actually accomplished AGI, mentioning, „In my viewpoint, we have actually currently accomplished AGI and it’s even more clear with O1.“ Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet „much better than any human at any job“, it is „much better than many people at most jobs.“ He also attended to criticisms that big language models (LLMs) merely follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing procedure to the scientific technique of observing, hypothesizing, and verifying. These declarations have stimulated argument, as they depend on a broad and unconventional definition of AGI-traditionally understood as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI’s designs demonstrate remarkable flexibility, they may not totally meet this requirement. Notably, Kazemi’s comments came quickly after OpenAI eliminated „AGI“ from the regards to its collaboration with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the business’s strategic intents. [95]

Timescales

Progress in expert system has actually historically gone through durations of quick development separated by periods when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were essential advances in hardware, software application or both to create space for more development. [82] [98] [99] For example, the computer system hardware available in the twentieth century was not sufficient to execute deep knowing, which needs great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the intro to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that price quotes of the time required before a really flexible AGI is built differ from 10 years to over a century. As of 2007 [update], the agreement in the AGI research neighborhood appeared to be that the timeline discussed by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. in between 2015 and 2045) was possible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have offered a wide variety of viewpoints on whether development will be this quick. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such viewpoints discovered a predisposition towards forecasting that the onset of AGI would take place within 16-26 years for contemporary and historic forecasts alike. That paper has actually been criticized for how it classified opinions as professional or non-expert. [104]

In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton developed a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competitors with a top-5 test error rate of 15.3%, substantially better than the second-best entry’s rate of 26.3% (the traditional technique utilized a weighted sum of ratings from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was concerned as the initial ground-breaker of the current deep knowing wave. [105]

In 2017, scientists Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu conducted intelligence tests on openly readily available and freely available weak AI such as Google AI, Apple’s Siri, and others. At the optimum, these AIs reached an IQ worth of about 47, which corresponds approximately to a six-year-old kid in first grade. A grownup pertains to about 100 typically. Similar tests were carried out in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching an optimum value of 27. [106] [107]

In 2020, OpenAI developed GPT-3, a language model capable of carrying out lots of varied jobs without specific training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat post, while there is consensus that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is considered by some to be too advanced to be classified as a narrow AI system. [108]

In the exact same year, Jason Rohrer utilized his GPT-3 account to develop a chatbot, and supplied a chatbot-developing platform called „Project December“. OpenAI requested for changes to the chatbot to adhere to their safety guidelines; Rohrer disconnected Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

In 2022, DeepMind developed Gato, a „general-purpose“ system efficient in performing more than 600 various tasks. [110]

In 2023, Microsoft Research published a research study on an early version of OpenAI’s GPT-4, contending that it exhibited more general intelligence than previous AI models and demonstrated human-level efficiency in jobs covering numerous domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study stimulated a debate on whether GPT-4 might be considered an early, incomplete variation of artificial basic intelligence, emphasizing the requirement for further exploration and evaluation of such systems. [111]

In 2023, the AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton stated that: [112]

The idea that this things might actually get smarter than people – a couple of individuals thought that, […] But the majority of individuals thought it was method off. And I believed it was way off. I believed it was 30 to 50 years or perhaps longer away. Obviously, I no longer believe that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly said that „The progress in the last few years has been pretty unbelievable“, which he sees no reason why it would decrease, anticipating AGI within a decade or even a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, mentioned his expectation that within 5 years, AI would be capable of passing any test at least in addition to humans. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI staff member, estimated AGI by 2027 to be „noticeably possible“. [115]

Whole brain emulation

While the advancement of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is thought about the most appealing course to AGI, [116] [117] whole brain emulation can serve as an alternative approach. With whole brain simulation, a brain design is built by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and then copying and imitating it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation model need to be sufficiently loyal to the original, so that it acts in virtually the same method 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 functions. It has actually been talked about in expert system research study [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that might deliver the required detailed understanding are improving rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] predicts that a map of adequate quality will end up being available on a comparable timescale to the computing power needed to emulate it.

Early estimates

For low-level brain simulation, an extremely effective cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be required, offered the massive 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 neurons. The brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number decreases with age, supporting by adulthood. Estimates differ for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A price quote of the brain’s processing power, based upon an easy switch model for nerve cell activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil looked at numerous quotes for the hardware required to equate to the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 computations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a „calculation“ was equivalent to one „floating-point operation“ – a procedure utilized to rate current supercomputers – then 1016 „calculations“ would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He utilized this figure to predict the necessary hardware would be readily available at some point between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid development in computer power at the time of writing continued.

Current research study

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded effort active from 2013 to 2023, has established a particularly in-depth and openly 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 methods

The artificial neuron model assumed by Kurzweil and utilized in numerous current artificial neural network executions is easy compared with biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely have to capture the comprehensive cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, currently understood just in broad outline. The overhead introduced by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (specifically on a molecular scale) would need computational powers several orders of magnitude bigger than Kurzweil’s estimate. In addition, the estimates do not account for glial cells, which are known to play a function in cognitive procedures. [125]

An essential criticism of the simulated brain method originates from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is a necessary element of human intelligence and is needed to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is proper, any totally functional brain design will need to encompass more than just the neurons (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as a choice, however it is unidentified whether this would be sufficient.

Philosophical point of view

„Strong AI“ as defined in philosophy

In 1980, philosopher John Searle created the term „strong AI“ as part of his Chinese room argument. [128] He proposed a distinction in between two hypotheses about synthetic intelligence: [f]

Strong AI hypothesis: An artificial intelligence system can have „a mind“ and „awareness“.
Weak AI hypothesis: A synthetic intelligence system can (just) act like it thinks and has a mind and awareness.

The first one he called „strong“ because it makes a stronger declaration: it assumes something unique has actually happened to the maker that goes beyond those abilities that we can test. The behaviour of a „weak AI“ device would be specifically similar to a „strong AI“ machine, however the latter would likewise have subjective conscious experience. This use is also common in academic AI research and books. [129]

In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil utilize the term „strong AI“ to imply „human level artificial basic intelligence“. [102] This is not the like Searle’s strong AI, unless it is presumed that awareness is necessary for human-level AGI. Academic theorists such as Searle do not believe that holds true, and to most expert system researchers the question is out-of-scope. [130]

Mainstream AI is most thinking about how a program behaves. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, „as long as the program works, they do not care if you call it real or a simulation.“ [130] If the program can act as if it has a mind, then there is no requirement to know if it really has mind – indeed, there would be no way to inform. For AI research study, 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 scholastic AI research, „Strong AI“ and „AGI“ are two various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have various significances, and some aspects play substantial roles in science fiction and the principles of synthetic intelligence:

Sentience (or „phenomenal awareness“): The ability to „feel“ perceptions or emotions subjectively, instead of the ability to factor about understandings. Some theorists, such as David Chalmers, utilize the term „consciousness“ to refer exclusively to sensational consciousness, which is roughly equivalent to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience emerges is referred to as the difficult problem of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel discussed in 1974 that it „seems like“ something to be mindful. If we are not mindful, then it does not feel like anything. Nagel uses the example of a bat: we can sensibly ask „what does it feel 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 seems conscious (i.e., has awareness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer declared that the company’s AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually attained life, though this claim was extensively challenged by other specialists. [135]
Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a different person, particularly to be knowingly aware of one’s own ideas. This is opposed to simply being the „subject of one’s believed“-an operating system or debugger is able to be „familiar with itself“ (that is, to represent itself in the exact same way it represents whatever else)-but this is not what people normally mean when they use the term „self-awareness“. [g]
These qualities have an ethical dimension. AI life would trigger concerns of well-being and legal protection, likewise to animals. [136] Other aspects of awareness associated to cognitive capabilities are likewise appropriate to the idea of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to integrate sophisticated AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emergent issue. [138]

Benefits

AGI might have a wide range of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI might assist alleviate various problems in the world such as cravings, poverty and health issue. [139]

AGI could improve productivity and performance in most tasks. For instance, in public health, AGI might accelerate medical research, especially versus cancer. [140] It could take care of the senior, [141] and equalize access to quick, high-quality medical diagnostics. It might use enjoyable, cheap and tailored education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist could end up being obsolete if the wealth produced is correctly redistributed. [141] [142] This also raises the concern of the location of people in a drastically automated society.

AGI might also assist to make reasonable choices, and to anticipate and prevent disasters. It might also help to gain the benefits of possibly devastating innovations such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while preventing the associated risks. [143] If an AGI’s primary goal is to avoid existential disasters such as human extinction (which could be challenging if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being true), [144] it could take procedures to drastically decrease the threats [143] while minimizing the impact of these procedures on our lifestyle.

Risks

Existential risks

AGI may represent several types of existential danger, which are dangers that threaten „the early extinction of Earth-originating smart life or the permanent and extreme damage of its potential for preferable future advancement“. [145] The danger of human extinction from AGI has actually been the topic of many debates, but there is also the possibility that the advancement of AGI would result in a completely flawed future. Notably, it might be utilized to spread out and protect the set of values of whoever establishes it. If humanity still has ethical blind spots similar to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, avoiding moral development. [146] Furthermore, AGI could facilitate mass security and indoctrination, which could be utilized to create a steady repressive worldwide totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is also a threat for the makers themselves. If devices that are sentient or otherwise worthwhile of ethical factor to consider are mass created in the future, participating in a civilizational path that forever disregards their welfare and interests might be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering how much AGI might enhance humankind’s future and aid lower other existential dangers, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers „an argument for continuing with due care“, not for „deserting AI„. [147]

Risk of loss of control and human termination

The thesis that AI presents an existential risk for humans, and that this risk requires more attention, is questionable however has been endorsed in 2023 by lots of 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 slammed prevalent indifference:

So, dealing with possible futures of enormous benefits and threats, the professionals are surely doing everything possible to ensure the very best result, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message stating, ‘We’ll get here in a couple of 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 happening with AI. [153]

The potential fate of humankind has actually sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast specifies that higher intelligence enabled mankind to dominate gorillas, which are now vulnerable in ways that they could not have prepared for. As an outcome, the gorilla has become an endangered species, not out of malice, however just as a security damage from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to control mankind which we need to beware not to anthropomorphize them and translate their intents as we would for humans. He stated that people won’t be „smart adequate to create super-intelligent devices, yet unbelievably dumb to the point of offering it moronic goals with no safeguards“. [155] On the other side, the idea of instrumental convergence recommends that nearly whatever their objectives, smart representatives will have factors to try to make it through and acquire more power as intermediary actions to attaining these objectives. And that this does not need having feelings. [156]

Many scholars who are worried about existential threat supporter for more research into resolving the „control problem“ to respond to the concern: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers implement to maximise the likelihood that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, rather than harmful, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is complicated by the AI arms race (which could cause a race to the bottom of safety preventative measures in order to release items before rivals), [159] and using AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can pose existential threat also has detractors. Skeptics generally say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI sidetrack from other problems related to current AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder considers that for numerous people outside of the technology market, existing chatbots and LLMs are currently viewed as though they were AGI, causing more misconception and worry. [162]

Skeptics in some cases charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an illogical belief in the possibility of superintelligence changing an illogical belief in a supreme God. [163] Some scientists think that the communication projects on AI existential threat by certain AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) may be an at attempt at regulative capture and to inflate interest in their items. [164] [165]

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, in addition to other market leaders and scientists, provided a joint statement asserting that „Mitigating the risk of termination from AI should be a worldwide top priority alongside 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 tasks impacted by the introduction of LLMs, while around 19% of workers may see at least 50% of their jobs impacted“. [166] [167] They think about workplace workers to be the most exposed, for example mathematicians, accountants or web designers. [167] AGI could 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 quality of life will depend on how the wealth will be rearranged: [142]

Everyone can enjoy a life of elegant leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or many people can end up badly poor if the machine-owners effectively lobby against wealth redistribution. Up until now, the pattern appears to be towards the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

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

See likewise

Artificial brain – Software and hardware with cognitive capabilities comparable to those of the animal or human brain
AI result
AI security – Research location on making AI safe and useful
AI positioning – AI conformance to the intended objective
A.I. Rising – 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža
Artificial intelligence
Automated device learning – Process of automating the application of machine learning
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 game playing – Ability of expert system to play different games
Generative artificial intelligence – AI system efficient in generating material in action to triggers
Human Brain Project – Scientific research task
Intelligence amplification – Use of infotech to enhance human intelligence (IA).
Machine principles – Moral behaviours of manufactured devices.
Moravec’s paradox.
Multi-task knowing – Solving numerous machine learning tasks at the exact same time.
Neural scaling law – Statistical law in machine knowing.
Outline of expert system – Overview of and topical guide to synthetic intelligence.
Transhumanism – Philosophical movement.
Synthetic intelligence – Alternate term for or kind of synthetic intelligence.
Transfer learning – Machine knowing method.
Loebner Prize – Annual AI competitors.
Hardware for synthetic intelligence – Hardware specially created and enhanced for expert system.
Weak synthetic intelligence – Form of synthetic intelligence.

Notes

^ a b See below for the origin of the term „strong AI„, and see the scholastic meaning of „strong AI“ and weak AI in the post Chinese room.
^ AI founder John McCarthy composes: „we can not yet identify in general what sort of computational procedures we wish to call smart. “ [26] (For a discussion of some meanings of intelligence utilized by synthetic intelligence researchers, see philosophy of expert system.).
^ The Lighthill report particularly slammed AI‘s „grand objectives“ and led the taking apart of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became determined to money only „mission-oriented direct research study, instead of basic undirected research“. [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy writes „it would be a terrific relief to the rest of the workers in AI if the developers of brand-new general formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more secured form than has sometimes held true.“ [61] ^ In „Mind Children“ [122] 1015 cps is used. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not „cps“, which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented.
^ As specified in a standard AI book: „The assertion that machines might perhaps act smartly (or, maybe much better, act as if they were smart) is called the ‘weak AI‘ hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that devices that do so are actually believing (as opposed to imitating 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 perform a single job.
^ „OpenAI Charter“. OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our objective is to make sure that synthetic general intelligence benefits all of mankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). „Mark Zuckerberg’s new goal is developing artificial 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 tasks were identified as being active in 2020.
^ a b c „AI timelines: What do specialists in expert system 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 cautions of threat ahead“. The New York City Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is hard to see how you can avoid the bad actors from using it for bad things.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). „Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs GPT-4“. arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 reveals triggers of AGI.
^ Butler, Octavia E. (1993 ). Parable of the Sower. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4466-7550-5. All that you touch you change. All that you change changes you.
^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming.
^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). „The True Threat of Artificial Intelligence“. The New York Times. The real hazard is not AI itself but the way we release it.
^ „Impressed by expert system? Experts say AGI is following, and it has ‘existential’ risks“. ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might posture existential risks to mankind.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The very first superintelligence will be the last creation that humankind needs 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 extinction from AI must be a global top priority.
^ „Statement on AI Risk“. Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI specialists alert of risk 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 basic methods.
^ 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 „maker intelligence with the full variety of human intelligence.“.
^ „The Age of Expert System: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013“. Archived from the initial on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they utilize for „human-level“ intelligence in the physical 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.
^ „Artificial intelligence is changing our world – it is on everybody 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 original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of smart characteristics is based upon the topics covered by significant AI books, including: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998.
^ Johnson 1987.
^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body forms the way we believe: a brand-new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). „Motivation reassessed: The principle of proficiency“. Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). „Motivation reassessed: The concept of proficiency“. Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). „What is AGI?“. Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the original on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
^ „What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence“. Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the 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 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 real boy – the Turing Test states so“. The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ „Scientists dispute whether computer ‘Eugene Goostman’ passed Turing test“. BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). „People can not distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test“. arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC]
^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). „AI designs like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing everything from the bar test to AP Biology. Here’s a list of difficult examinations both AI variations have passed“. Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). „6 Jobs Expert System 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 undependable. The Winograd Schema is obsolete. Coffee is the answer“. Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). „DeepMind’s co-founder suggested testing an AI chatbot’s ability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to determine human-like intelligence“. Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). „Mustafa Suleyman: My new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million“. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). „Expert System“ (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Expert System (Second ed.). New York City: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on „AI-Complete Tasks“.).
^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). „Turing Test as a Specifying Feature of AI-Completeness“ (PDF). Expert System, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 22 May 2013.
^ „AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts“. Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50.
^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). „Artificial Intelligence, Business and Civilization – Our Fate Made in Machines“. Archived from the original on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
^ Simon 1965, p. 96 quoted 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 initial on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007.
^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). „Behind Expert system, a Squadron of Bright Real People“. The New York City Times. Archived from the initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system scientists and software application engineers prevented the term artificial intelligence for worry of being deemed 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 Expert System: 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 original on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ „Who coined the term „AGI“?“. goertzel.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., through Life 3.0: ‘The term „AGI“ was popularized by … Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel’
^ Wang & Goertzel 2007
^ „First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summer school: June 22 – July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009“. Archived from the initial on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ „Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 – пролетен триместър“ [Elective courses 2009/2010 – spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the 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 maker intelligence: Despite progress in maker intelligence, artificial basic intelligence is still a significant challenge“. 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 explores GPT-4“. arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ „Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing „Sparks“ of AGI“. Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023.
^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). „The Singularity Isn’t Near“. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Winfield, Alan. „Expert system will not develop into a Frankenstein’s beast“. The Guardian. Archived from the 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 general artificial 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 destruction?“. The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future progress in expert system: A study of professional viewpoint. In Fundamental concerns of expert system (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.
^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. „How We’re Predicting AI-or Failing To.“ In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, modified by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia
^ „Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows ‘Sparks’ of General Intelligence“. 24 March 2023.
^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). „AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test“. Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). „The creativity of makers: AI takes the Torrance Test“. Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185.
^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). „Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here“. Noema.
^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). „Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024“. Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
^ „Introducing OpenAI o1-preview“. OpenAI. 12 September 2024.
^ Knight, Will. „OpenAI Announces a Brand-new AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step“. Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024.
^ „OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved“. Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024.
^ „AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts“. hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ „Next-Gen AI: OpenAI and Meta’s Leap Towards Reasoning Machines“. Unite.ai. 19 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ James, Alex P. (2022 ). „The Why, What, and How of Artificial General Intelligence Chip Development“. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. 14 (2 ): 333-347. arXiv:2012.06338. doi:10.1109/ TCDS.2021.3069871. ISSN 2379-8920. S2CID 228376556. Archived from the initial on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
^ Pei, Jing; Deng, Lei; Song, Sen; Zhao, Mingguo; Zhang, Youhui; Wu, Shuang; Wang, Guanrui; Zou, Zhe; Wu, Zhenzhi; He, Wei; Chen, Feng; Deng, Ning; Wu, Si; Wang, Yu; Wu, Yujie (2019 ). „Towards synthetic general intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture“. Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the initial on 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
^ Pandey, Mohit; Fernandez, Michael; Gentile, Francesco; Isayev, Olexandr; Tropsha, Alexander; Stern, Abraham C.; Cherkasov, Artem (March 2022). „The transformational role of GPU computing and deep knowing in drug discovery“. Nature Machine Intelligence. 4 (3 ): 211-221. doi:10.1038/ s42256-022-00463-x. ISSN 2522-5839. S2CID 252081559.
^ Goertzel & Pennachin 2006.
^ a b c (Kurzweil 2005, p. 260).
^ a b c Goertzel 2007.
^ Grace, Katja (2016 ). „Error in Armstrong and Sotala 2012“. AI Impacts (blog site). Archived from the initial on 4 December 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2020.
^ a b Butz, Martin V. (1 March 2021). „Towards Strong AI„. KI – Künstliche Intelligenz. 35 (1 ): 91-101. doi:10.1007/ s13218-021-00705-x. ISSN 1610-1987. S2CID 256065190.
^ Liu, Feng; Shi, Yong; Liu, Ying (2017 ). „Intelligence Quotient and Intelligence Grade of Expert System“. Annals of Data Science. 4 (2 ): 179-191. arXiv:1709.10242. doi:10.1007/ s40745-017-0109-0. S2CID 37900130.
^ Brien, Jörn (5 October 2017). „Google-KI doppelt so schlau wie Siri“ [Google AI is twice as clever as Siri – 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 twilight zone in between narrow and basic AI„. VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020. Certainly, too, there are those who claim we are currently seeing an early example of an AGI system in the recently revealed GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. … So is GPT-3 the very first example of an AGI system? This is debatable, however the agreement is that it is not AGI. … If absolutely nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a middle ground between narrow and basic AI.
^ Quach, Katyanna. „A developer constructed 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 original 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 video games to managing robotics“, 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 City Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ Bove, Tristan. „A.I. might rival human intelligence in ‘just a couple of years,’ says CEO of Google’s main A.I. research laboratory“. Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). „Nvidia CEO says AI could pass human tests in 5 years“. Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. „SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead“.
^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). „Why everybody appears to disagree on how to 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 study 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 wide variety of views in current research study, all of which require grounding to some degree
^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). „How submitting 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 (quoted in“ Encyclopedia.com“),.
MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (estimated 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 thinks the company’s AI has come to life“. The Washington Post. 11 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). „AI Should Be Terrified of Humans“. TIME. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Nosta, John (18 December 2023). „Should 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 exceed advantages?“. 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ „How we can Take advantage of Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) – Unite.AI„. www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. „What Will Our Society Appear Like When Artificial Intelligence Is Everywhere?“. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Stevenson, Matt (8 October 2015). „Answers to Stephen Hawking’s AMA are Here!“. Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ a b Bostrom, Nick (2017 ). “ § Preferred order of arrival“. Superintelligence: courses, dangers, strategies (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, UK; New York, 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 destroy ourselves“. Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). „Climate alter 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 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 takes a look at the ramifications of expert system – however are we taking AI seriously enough?'“. The Independent (UK). Archived from the original on 25 September 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2014.
^ Herger, Mario. „The Gorilla Problem – Enterprise Garage“. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ „The remarkable Facebook dispute in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI„. The remarkable Facebook debate 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 Mankind Within The Next 100 Years?“. HuffPost. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sotala, Kaj; Yampolskiy, Roman V. (19 December 2014). „Responses to disastrous AGI risk: a study“. Physica Scripta. 90 (1 ): 018001. doi:10.1088/ 0031-8949/90/ 1/018001. ISSN 0031-8949.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (First ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2.
^ Chow, Andrew R.; Perrigo, Billy (16 February 2023). „The AI Arms Race Is On. Start Worrying“. TIME. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Tetlow, Gemma (12 January 2017). „AI arms race risks spiralling out of control, report alerts“. 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 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 completion of Humanity Mean for Me?“. The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
^ Titcomb, James (30 October 2023). „Big Tech is stoking worries over AI, caution scientists“. The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). „Google Brain creator says big tech is lying about AI extinction threat“. Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Eloundou, Tyna; Manning, Sam; Mishkin, Pamela; Rock, Daniel (17 March 2023). „GPTs are GPTs: An early take a look at the labor market impact capacity of large language designs“. OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). „OpenAI says 80% of workers could see their tasks impacted by AI. These are the jobs most impacted“. euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). „Elon Musk says we need universal basic earnings since ‘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 original on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021.
Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press.
Clocksin, William (August 2003), „Expert system and the future“, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007.
Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous 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 synthetic general intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a response to Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott’s critique of Kurzweil“, Expert system, vol. 171, no. 18, Special Review Issue, pp. 1161-1173, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.011, archived from the original on 7 January 2016, recovered 1 April 2009.
Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), „Nanotechnology and International Security“, Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the initial on 29 May 2011, retrieved 7 May 2011.
Howe, J. (November 1994), Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University: a Viewpoint, archived from the initial on 17 August 2007, obtained 30 August 2007.
Johnson, Mark (1987 ), The body in the mind, Chicago, ISBN 978-0-2264-0317-5.
Kurzweil, Ray (2005 ), The Singularity is Near, Viking Press.
Lighthill, Professor Sir James (1973 ), „Expert System: A General Survey“, Expert System: a paper symposium, Science Research Council.
Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Expert System: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving (5th ed.), The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., p. 720, ISBN 978-0-8053-4780-7.
McCarthy, John (2007b). What is Expert system?. Stanford University. The ultimate effort is to make computer system programs that can solve issues and achieve objectives on the planet 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, 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, obtained 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 Transformation: Government Support for Computing Research, National Academy Press, archived from the initial on 12 January 2008, retrieved 29 September 2007
Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Logical Approach, New York City: Oxford University Press, archived from the original on 25 July 2009, retrieved 6 December 2007
Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003 ), Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-790395-2
Sandberg, Anders; Boström, Nick (2008 ), Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap (PDF), Technical Report # 2008-3, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University, archived (PDF) from the original on 25 March 2020, recovered 5 April 2009
Searle, John (1980 ), „Minds, Brains and Programs“ (PDF), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (3 ): 417-457, doi:10.1017/ S0140525X00005756, S2CID 55303721, archived (PDF) from the initial on 17 March 2019, 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 meaning and cognition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-1992-1727-4
Wang, Pei; Goertzel, Ben (2007 ). „Introduction: Aspects of Artificial General Intelligence“. Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms: Proceedings of the AGI Workshop 2006. IOS Press. pp. 1-16. ISBN 978-1-5860-3758-1. Archived from the initial on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 – 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, recovered 4 September 2013 – by means of ResearchGate
Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Artificial Intelligence Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the initial on 23 July 2014, recovered 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 basic adequate to be understandable will not be complicated enough to act intelligently, while any system made complex enough to behave intelligently will be too made complex to understand.“ (p. 197.) Computer scientist Alex Pentland composes: „Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead simple foolish. They work, but they work by brute force.“ (p. 198.).
Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the initial on 26 July 2010, recovered 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 City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. „Agency is what identifies us from devices. For biological creatures, factor and function come from acting on the planet and experiencing the consequences. Artificial intelligences – disembodied, strangers to blood, sweat, and tears – have no celebration for that.“ (p. 30.).
Halal, William E. „TechCast Article Series: The Automation of Thought“ (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on 6 June 2013.
– Halpern, Sue, „The Coming Tech Autocracy“ (evaluation of Verity Harding, AI Needs You: How We Can Change AI‘s Future and Save Our Own, Princeton University Press, 274 pp.; Gary Marcus, Taming Silicon Valley: How We Can Ensure That AI Works for Us, MIT Press, 235 pp.; Daniela Rus and Gregory Mone, The Mind’s Mirror: Risk and Reward in the Age of AI, Norton, 280 pp.; Madhumita Murgia, Code Dependent: Residing In the Shadow of AI, Henry Holt, 311 pp.), The New York City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. „‘ We can’t reasonably anticipate that those who want to get abundant from AI are going to have the interests of the rest people close at heart,’ … composes [Gary Marcus] ‘We can’t depend on governments driven by project finance contributions [from tech business] to push back.’ … Marcus information the demands that residents need to make of their federal governments and the tech companies. They consist of transparency on how AI systems work; payment for individuals if their information [are] utilized to train LLMs (large language design) s and the right to approval to this use; and the ability to hold tech business liable for the damages they trigger by getting rid of Section 230, enforcing cash penalites, and passing more stringent item liability laws … Marcus also suggests … that a brand-new, AI-specific federal company, akin to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, might supply the most robust oversight … [T] he Fordham law teacher Chinmayi Sharma … suggests … establish [ing] a professional licensing regime for engineers that would work in a comparable method to medical licenses, malpractice matches, and the Hippocratic oath in medicine. ‘What if, like physicians,’ she asks …, ‘AI engineers also pledged to do no damage?'“ (p. 46.).
Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), „Abstraction and reformulation in synthetic intelligence“, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 358, no. 1435, pp. 1197-1204, doi:10.1098/ rstb.2003.1317, PMC 1693218, PMID 12903653.
Hughes-Castleberry, Kenna, „A Murder Mystery Puzzle: The literary puzzle Cain’s Jawbone, which has 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 revealed that although NLP (natural-language processing) models can amazing accomplishments, their capabilities are quite limited by the amount of context they get. This […] might trigger [difficulties] for scientists who wish to use them to do things such as analyze ancient languages. In some cases, there are couple of historical records on long-gone civilizations to function as training data for such a purpose.“ (p. 82.).
Immerwahr, Daniel, „Your Lying Eyes: People now utilize A.I. to generate fake videos indistinguishable from genuine ones. Just 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 individuals, then they barely exist. The phonies aren’t deep, and the deeps aren’t fake. […] A.I.-generated videos are not, in general, operating in our media as counterfeited proof. Their role better looks like that of animations, particularly smutty ones.“ (p. 59.).
– Leffer, Lauren, „The Risks of Trusting AI: We should avoid humanizing machine-learning models utilized in scientific research study“, Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81.
Lepore, Jill, „The Chit-Chatbot: it-viking.ch Is talking with a device a discussion?“, The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16.
Marcus, Gary, „Artificial Confidence: Even the most recent, 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 (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 original on 3 March 2016, recovered 29 September 2007.
Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1963 ), „GPS: A Program that Simulates Human Thought“, in Feigenbaum, E. A.; Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Omohundro, Steve (2008 ), The Nature of Self-Improving Expert system, presented and dispersed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California.
Press, Eyal, „In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition technology lead police to neglect contradictory proof?“, The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26.
Roivainen, Eka, „AI‘s IQ: ChatGPT aced a [basic 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 fails at tasks that need real humanlike reasoning or an understanding of the physical and social world … ChatGPT appeared unable to reason realistically and attempted to depend on its large database of … facts 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 technologies are powerful but unreliable. Rules-based systems can not deal with circumstances their developers did not prepare for. Learning systems are restricted by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have currently resulted in catastrophe. Advanced autopilot functions in cars, although they carry out well in some situations, have driven cars without cautioning into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked cars. In the incorrect situation, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an immediate. When an opponent is trying to control and hack an AI system, the dangers are even greater.“ (p. 140.).
Sutherland, J. G. (1990 ), „Holographic Model of Memory, Learning, and Expression“, International Journal of Neural Systems, vol. 1-3, pp. 256-267.
– Vincent, James, „Horny Robot Baby Voice: James Vincent on AI chatbots“, London Review of Books, vol. 46, no. 19 (10 October 2024), pp. 29-32.“ [AI chatbot] programs are enabled by new technologies but count on the timelelss human propensity to anthropomorphise.“ (p. 29.).
Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.