Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of expert system (AI) that matches or exceeds human cognitive capabilities across a broad range of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to particular jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, describes AGI that greatly surpasses human cognitive capabilities. AGI is considered one of the definitions of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a main objective of AI research study and of companies such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 study identified 72 active AGI research study and advancement projects throughout 37 countries. [4]
The timeline for attaining AGI stays a subject of continuous debate amongst researchers and professionals. As of 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or decades; others preserve it might take a century or longer; a minority think it might never ever be attained; and another minority declares that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton has actually expressed concerns about the quick progress towards AGI, recommending it could be attained quicker than many anticipate. [7]
There is debate on the specific meaning of AGI and regarding whether modern-day large language designs (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early types of AGI. [8] AGI is a common topic in sci-fi and futures studies. [9] [10]
Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. [11] [12] [13] Many specialists on AI have specified that mitigating the risk of human termination postured by AGI ought to be an international top priority. [14] [15] Others find the advancement of AGI to be too remote to present such a threat. [16] [17]
Terminology

AGI is also called strong AI, [18] [19] complete AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level intelligent AI, or general smart action. [21]
Some academic sources book the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience life or consciousness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) has the ability to solve one specific problem however lacks basic cognitive abilities. [22] [19] Some scholastic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness nor have a mind in the very same sense as human beings. [a]
Related principles consist of artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical kind of AGI that is far more typically smart than humans, [23] while the concept of transformative AI relates to AI having a large effect on society, for example, comparable to the farming or commercial revolution. [24]
A framework for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They define five levels of AGI: emerging, qualified, specialist, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a qualified AGI is defined as an AI that exceeds 50% of experienced adults in a large range of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. a synthetic superintelligence) is likewise specified but with a threshold of 100%. They consider large language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]
Characteristics

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

Researchers typically hold that intelligence is needed to do all of the following: [27]
reason, usage method, resolve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty represent knowledge, consisting of sound judgment understanding plan find out

• interact in natural language
• if essential, incorporate these skills in conclusion of any offered objective

Many interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) consider extra qualities such as creativity (the capability to form unique mental images and concepts) [28] and autonomy. [29]
Computer-based systems that show a lot of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated reasoning, decision support system, robotic, evolutionary calculation, intelligent agent). There is argument about whether contemporary AI systems possess them to an adequate degree.

Physical traits

Other abilities are thought about desirable in smart systems, as they may affect intelligence or aid in its expression. These consist of: [30]
- the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on), and - the capability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate items, modification location to check out, and so on).
This consists of the capability to identify and respond to danger. [31]
Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc) and the capability to act (e.g. move and control objects, change area to check out, etc) can be desirable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly needed for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that large language designs (LLMs) may already be or become AGI. Even from a less positive perspective on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like form; being a silicon-based computational system suffices, provided it can process input (language) from the external world in location of human senses. This analysis aligns with the understanding that AGI has never ever been proscribed a specific physical personification and thus does not require a capacity for mobility or standard "eyes and ears". [32]
Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests meant to verify human-level AGI have been considered, including: [33] [34]
The concept of the test is that the maker needs to attempt and pretend to be a guy, by responding to concerns put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is reasonably persuading. A considerable portion of a jury, who should not be skilled about machines, need to be taken in by the pretence. [37]
AI-complete issues

An issue is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is thought that in order to fix it, one would require to implement AGI, since the option is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]
There are many problems that have actually been conjectured to need general intelligence to resolve as well as people. Examples include computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unforeseen scenarios while resolving any real-world issue. [48] Even a particular task like translation needs a device to read and write in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), understand the context (understanding), and faithfully recreate the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these problems require to be solved all at once in order to reach human-level machine performance.

However, many of these tasks can now be carried out by contemporary large language designs. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has actually reached human-level efficiency on numerous 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 encouraged that synthetic general intelligence was possible and that it would exist in simply a couple of decades. [51] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon composed in 1965: "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do." [52]
Their forecasts were the inspiration for surgiteams.com Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers thought they might create by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a specialist [53] on the task of making HAL 9000 as sensible as possible according to the agreement predictions of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation ... the issue of producing 'synthetic intelligence' will substantially be solved". [54]
Several classical AI tasks, such as Doug Lenat's Cyc project (that started in 1984), and Allen Newell's Soar job, were directed at AGI.

However, in the early 1970s, it ended up being obvious that researchers had grossly undervalued the difficulty of the task. Funding firms became doubtful of AGI and put scientists 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 consisted of AGI objectives like "continue a casual conversation". [58] In reaction to this and the success of expert systems, both industry and government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI marvelously collapsed in the late 1980s, and the objectives of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever fulfilled. [60] For the second time in 20 years, AI scientists who predicted the impending achievement of AGI had actually been mistaken. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a credibility for making vain promises. They ended up being unwilling to make predictions at all [d] and avoided reference of "human level" synthetic 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 academic respectability by focusing on particular sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable results and commercial applications, such as speech recognition and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now used thoroughly throughout the technology industry, and research in this vein is heavily funded in both academic community and market. Since 2018 [update], development in this field was thought about an emerging trend, and a fully grown phase was expected to be reached in more than ten years. [64]
At the millenium, numerous mainstream AI researchers [65] hoped that strong AI could be established by integrating programs that fix different sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:

I am positive that this bottom-up path to expert system will one day fulfill the traditional top-down route majority way, prepared to provide the real-world proficiency and the commonsense understanding that has actually been so frustratingly elusive in reasoning programs. Fully smart devices will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven uniting the two efforts. [65]
However, even at the time, this was challenged. For example, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the sign grounding hypothesis by mentioning:

The expectation has actually often been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow meet "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 practical route from sense to signs: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software level of a computer will never be reached by this path (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we must even attempt to reach such a level, given that it looks as if getting there would just total up to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic meanings (thereby simply lowering ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]
Modern synthetic general intelligence research study

The term "artificial basic intelligence" was utilized as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation of the implications of completely automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI agent maximises "the ability to satisfy goals in a large range of environments". [68] This type of AGI, identified by the capability to increase a mathematical meaning of intelligence instead of exhibit human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal expert system. [70]
The term AGI was re-introduced and popularized by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research study activity in 2006 was described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and preliminary outcomes". The very 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 given up 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT presented a course on AGI in 2018, arranged by Lex Fridman and including a variety of visitor speakers.

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

Feasibility

As of 2023, the development and prospective accomplishment of AGI stays a subject of extreme dispute within the AI community. While traditional consensus held that AGI was a distant objective, current improvements have led some scientists and market figures to declare that early types of AGI might currently exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon hypothesized in 1965 that "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do". This prediction failed to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen believed that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century since it would require "unforeseeable and basically unpredictable advancements" and a "scientifically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf in between modern-day computing and human-level artificial intelligence is as broad as the gulf in between current area flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]
A further difficulty is the absence of clearness in defining what intelligence entails. Does it need consciousness? Must it display the capability to set objectives along with pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if model sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are facilities such as planning, thinking, and causal understanding needed? Does intelligence require explicitly replicating the brain and its particular faculties? Does it require emotions? [81]
Most AI researchers believe strong AI can be attained in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of accomplishing strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who think human-level AI will be achieved, however that today level of development is such that a date can not properly be predicted. [84] AI experts' views on the expediency of AGI wax and subside. Four surveys performed in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the mean estimate among professionals for when they would be 50% positive AGI would get here was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the experts, 16.5% addressed with "never" when asked the exact same concern but with a 90% self-confidence rather. [85] [86] Further existing AGI progress considerations can be found above Tests for confirming 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 bias towards anticipating the arrival of human-level AI as between 15 and 25 years from the time the prediction was made". They analyzed 95 predictions made between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]
In 2023, Microsoft researchers released a comprehensive assessment of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, we think that it might fairly be deemed an early (yet still insufficient) variation of an artificial basic intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outshines 99% of people on the Torrance tests of innovative thinking. [89] [90]
Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig wrote in 2023 that a significant level of general intelligence has actually already been attained with frontier models. They wrote that unwillingness to this view originates from four main reasons: a "healthy apprehension about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or techniques", a "dedication to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "concern about the economic ramifications of AGI". [91]
2023 also marked the development of big multimodal models (big language models capable of processing or generating multiple methods such as text, audio, and images). [92]
In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the very first of a series of designs that "invest more time believing before they react". According to Mira Murati, this capability to think before reacting represents a brand-new, additional paradigm. It improves design outputs by investing more computing power when producing the response, whereas the model scaling paradigm improves outputs by increasing the design size, training information and training calculate power. [93] [94]
An OpenAI employee, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the company had actually attained AGI, mentioning, "In my opinion, we have actually currently achieved 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 task", it is "much better than most human beings at the majority of tasks." He also attended to criticisms that large language models (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing procedure to the scientific technique of observing, assuming, and confirming. These declarations have sparked debate, as they count on a broad and non-traditional meaning of AGI-traditionally understood as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's designs show impressive flexibility, they might not totally meet this standard. Notably, Kazemi's comments came quickly after OpenAI removed "AGI" from the regards to its collaboration with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the company's tactical intentions. [95]
Timescales

Progress in expert system has traditionally gone through durations of quick progress separated by durations when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were essential advances in hardware, software or both to produce space for additional development. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the computer system hardware readily available in the twentieth century was not sufficient to carry out deep learning, which requires large numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]
In the intro to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that estimates of the time required before a really flexible AGI is built vary from ten years to over a century. As of 2007 [upgrade], the consensus in the AGI research study neighborhood seemed to be that the timeline discussed by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. in between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have offered a vast array of opinions on whether development will be this quick. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions discovered a bias towards forecasting that the beginning of AGI would occur within 16-26 years for modern and historical forecasts alike. That paper has been criticized 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 better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the standard method used a weighted sum of ratings from various pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was regarded as the initial ground-breaker of the present deep learning wave. [105]
In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu carried out intelligence tests on openly available and easily accessible 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 around to a six-year-old child in first grade. A grownup concerns about 100 typically. Similar tests were performed in 2014, with the IQ score reaching a maximum worth of 27. [106] [107]
In 2020, OpenAI developed GPT-3, a language model efficient in performing lots of varied jobs without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat short article, while there is agreement 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 exact same year, Jason Rohrer used his GPT-3 account to establish a chatbot, and provided a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested for modifications to the chatbot to adhere to their security guidelines; Rohrer disconnected Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]
In 2022, DeepMind developed Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of carrying out more than 600 various tasks. [110]
In 2023, Microsoft Research published a study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, competing that it displayed more general intelligence than previous AI designs and demonstrated human-level performance in tasks covering several domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research triggered an argument on whether GPT-4 could be thought about an early, insufficient version of artificial basic intelligence, highlighting the requirement for more exploration and evaluation of such systems. [111]
In 2023, the AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton mentioned that: [112]
The concept that this stuff might in fact get smarter than people - a couple of individuals thought that, [...] But the majority of individuals thought it was way off. And I thought it was way off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years or perhaps longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly stated that "The development in the last couple of years has been quite unbelievable", and that he sees no reason it would slow down, expecting AGI within a decade and even a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, specified his expectation that within five years, AI would can passing any test a minimum of as well as people. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI staff member, estimated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably plausible". [115]
Whole brain emulation

While the development of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is thought about the most promising course to AGI, [116] [117] whole brain emulation can act as an alternative method. With whole brain simulation, a brain model is developed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and then copying and mimicing it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation model must be sufficiently faithful to the original, so that it behaves in virtually the same method as the initial brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is talked about in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study functions. It has actually been gone over in expert system research [103] as a technique to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that could deliver the required detailed understanding are improving quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] predicts that a map of sufficient quality will appear on a comparable timescale to the computing power needed to replicate it.

Early estimates

For low-level brain simulation, a very effective cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be needed, provided the massive quantity of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells has on typical 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other neurons. The brain of a three-year-old kid has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, supporting by the adult years. Estimates differ for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A quote of the brain's processing power, based upon an easy switch design for nerve cell activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]
In 1997, Kurzweil looked at various estimates for the hardware required to equate to the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 computations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a "computation" was equivalent to one "floating-point operation" - a step used to rate present supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, achieved in 2011, while 1018 was accomplished in 2022.) He used this figure to anticipate the needed hardware would be available at some point between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential development in computer system power at the time of writing continued.

Current research study

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

Criticisms of simulation-based methods

The artificial nerve cell design presumed by Kurzweil and utilized in lots of present artificial neural network executions is basic compared with biological nerve cells. A brain simulation would likely have to record the comprehensive cellular behaviour of biological neurons, currently understood only in broad summary. The overhead presented by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (especially on a molecular scale) would require computational powers a number of orders of magnitude bigger than Kurzweil's price quote. In addition, the estimates do not account for glial cells, which are known to play a function in cognitive processes. [125]
A fundamental criticism of the simulated brain technique stems from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is a vital aspect of human intelligence and is essential to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is proper, any fully practical brain model will require to encompass more than just the nerve cells (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an option, but it is unidentified whether this would suffice.

Philosophical perspective

"Strong AI" as specified in viewpoint

In 1980, thinker John Searle created the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese space argument. [128] He proposed a difference in between 2 hypotheses about expert system: [f]
Strong AI hypothesis: An expert system system can have "a mind" and "consciousness". Weak AI hypothesis: An expert system system can (only) imitate it believes and has a mind and consciousness.
The first one he called "strong" because it makes a stronger declaration: it assumes something special has happened to the machine that surpasses those capabilities that we can check. The behaviour of a "weak AI" maker would be specifically similar to a "strong AI" device, but the latter would likewise have subjective conscious experience. This use is also common in scholastic AI research and books. [129]
In contrast to Searle and traditional AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil utilize the term "strong AI" to suggest "human level artificial general intelligence". [102] This is not the like Searle's strong AI, unless it is assumed that consciousness is required for human-level AGI. Academic thinkers such as Searle do not think that is the case, and to most expert system scientists the concern is out-of-scope. [130]
Mainstream AI is most interested in how a program acts. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they don't 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 requirement to understand if it really has mind - indeed, there would be no way to tell. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is equivalent to the declaration "artificial general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for granted, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have various significances, and some aspects play considerable roles in sci-fi and the principles of synthetic intelligence:

Sentience (or "extraordinary awareness"): The ability to "feel" perceptions or emotions subjectively, instead of the ability to reason about perceptions. Some theorists, such as David Chalmers, use the term "consciousness" to refer solely to extraordinary awareness, which is roughly equivalent to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience emerges is referred to as the hard problem of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel described in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be conscious. If we are not mindful, then it does not seem like anything. Nagel uses the example of a bat: we can smartly ask "what does it feel like to be a bat?" However, we are unlikely to ask "what does it feel like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat seems conscious (i.e., has awareness) but a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually attained sentience, though this claim was extensively challenged by other experts. [135]
Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a different person, particularly to be knowingly familiar with one's own ideas. This is opposed to merely being the "subject of one's thought"-an operating system or debugger is able to be "knowledgeable about itself" (that is, to represent itself in the same way it represents whatever else)-however this is not what individuals normally suggest when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]
These characteristics have a moral dimension. AI life would generate issues of well-being and legal security, likewise to animals. [136] Other aspects of consciousness related to cognitive capabilities are also appropriate to the idea of AI rights. [137] Determining how to incorporate sophisticated AI with existing legal and social structures is an emerging concern. [138]
Benefits

AGI might have a variety of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI might assist alleviate various problems in the world such as appetite, poverty and health problems. [139]
AGI might enhance productivity and efficiency in many jobs. For instance, in public health, AGI could speed up medical research study, significantly versus cancer. [140] It might look after the senior, [141] and democratize access to quick, top quality medical diagnostics. It could provide enjoyable, cheap and tailored education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist might become obsolete if the wealth produced is correctly redistributed. [141] [142] This likewise raises the concern of the place of humans in a drastically automated society.

AGI could also assist to make logical decisions, and to prepare for and avoid catastrophes. It could likewise assist to profit of possibly disastrous technologies such as nanotechnology or environment engineering, while avoiding the associated risks. [143] If an AGI's main objective is to avoid existential disasters such as human termination (which could be challenging if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be real), [144] it might take steps to drastically minimize the risks [143] while minimizing the impact of these measures on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential dangers

AGI may represent numerous kinds of existential risk, which are risks that threaten "the premature termination of Earth-originating smart life or the long-term and extreme destruction of its potential for preferable future development". [145] The threat of human extinction from AGI has actually been the subject of many arguments, but there is also the possibility that the advancement of AGI would result in a permanently problematic future. Notably, it might be utilized to spread out and protect the set of values of whoever establishes it. If mankind still has ethical blind areas comparable to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, preventing moral development. [146] Furthermore, AGI might help with mass monitoring and brainwashing, which might be utilized to create a stable repressive worldwide totalitarian regime. [147] [148] There is also a danger for the makers themselves. If machines that are sentient or otherwise deserving of ethical consideration are mass created in the future, taking part in a civilizational course that indefinitely neglects their welfare and interests might be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI might enhance humanity's future and assistance decrease other existential threats, 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 termination

The thesis that AI postures an existential danger for humans, which this threat requires more attention, is questionable however has actually been backed in 2023 by lots of 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 criticized extensive indifference:

So, dealing with possible futures of enormous benefits and risks, the specialists are definitely doing everything possible to make sure the very best outcome, right? Wrong. If an exceptional alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll get here in a couple of decades,' 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 possible fate of humanity has actually often been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The comparison specifies that greater intelligence permitted mankind to control gorillas, which are now susceptible in manner ins which they might not have actually expected. As an outcome, the gorilla has become a threatened types, not out of malice, but merely as a security damage from human activities. [154]
The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to dominate humanity which we ought to beware not to anthropomorphize them and analyze their intents as we would for human beings. He said that people won't be "smart adequate to create super-intelligent devices, yet ridiculously stupid to the point of offering it moronic objectives with no safeguards". [155] On the other side, the idea of critical convergence recommends that practically whatever their objectives, smart agents will have reasons to attempt to make it through and acquire more power as intermediary actions to attaining these goals. Which this does not need having feelings. [156]
Many scholars who are concerned about existential danger supporter for more research into solving the "control problem" to address the question: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers implement to increase the probability that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, instead of devastating, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is made complex by the AI arms race (which might result in a race to the bottom of security precautions in order to launch items before competitors), [159] and making use of AI in weapon systems. [160]
The thesis that AI can present existential risk likewise has critics. Skeptics normally say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI sidetrack from other problems associated with present AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for many individuals beyond the innovation market, existing chatbots and LLMs are already perceived as though they were AGI, resulting in additional misconception and fear. [162]
Skeptics in some cases charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an irrational belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an irrational belief in a supreme God. [163] Some researchers believe that the communication projects on AI existential risk by specific AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might be an at effort at regulatory capture and to inflate interest in their products. [164] [165]
In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, in addition to other market leaders and scientists, issued a joint statement asserting that "Mitigating the danger of termination from AI must be an international top priority along with other societal-scale threats such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]
Mass joblessness

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

According to Stephen Hawking, the outcome of automation on the quality of life will depend on how the wealth will be redistributed: [142]
Everyone can take pleasure in a life of elegant leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or the majority of people can wind up badly bad if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. Up until now, the pattern appears to be towards the second choice, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

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

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities similar to those of the animal or human brain AI result AI safety - Research location on making AI safe and advantageous AI alignment - AI conformance to the intended objective A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža Expert system Automated maker knowing - Process of automating the application of machine knowing BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research effort revealed by the Obama administration China Brain Project Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research study centre General game playing - Ability of expert system to play various games Generative expert system - AI system capable of producing content in response to triggers Human Brain Project - Scientific research study project Intelligence amplification - Use of details technology to augment human intelligence (IA). Machine principles - Moral behaviours of man-made machines. Moravec's paradox. Multi-task learning - Solving numerous device finding out tasks at the same time. Neural scaling law - Statistical law in artificial intelligence. Outline of expert system - Overview of and topical guide to synthetic intelligence. Transhumanism - Philosophical motion. Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or type of expert system. Transfer learning - Machine knowing method. Loebner Prize - Annual AI competition. Hardware for expert system - Hardware specifically designed and enhanced for expert system. Weak expert system - Form of artificial intelligence.
Notes

^ a b See listed below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the scholastic definition of "strong AI" and weak AI in the post Chinese space. ^ 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 conversation of some definitions of intelligence utilized by artificial intelligence researchers, see philosophy of synthetic intelligence.). ^ The Lighthill report specifically criticized AI's "grandiose objectives" and led the taking apart of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA ended up being determined to money only "mission-oriented direct research, instead of standard undirected research". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy composes "it would be a terrific relief to the rest of the workers in AI if the creators of new general formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more secured kind than has actually often held true." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More just recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly correspond to 1014 cps. Moravec talks in regards to MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented. ^ As specified in a standard AI book: "The assertion that machines could perhaps act intelligently (or, perhaps much better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by thinkers, and the assertion that machines that do so are actually thinking (rather than 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 artificial 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 ensure that artificial basic intelligence advantages all of humankind. ^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's new goal is creating artificial general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to construct AI that is much better than human-level at all of the human senses. ^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Study of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D jobs were determined as being active in 2020. ^ a b c "AI timelines: What do professionals 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 Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023. ^ "AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton stops Google and warns of danger ahead". The New York City Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is hard to see how you can prevent the bad actors from using it for bad things. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with 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 alter. All that you alter modifications you. ^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming. ^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Artificial Intelligence". The New York City Times. The real hazard is not AI itself however the way we release it. ^ "Impressed by artificial intelligence? Experts say AGI is coming next, and it has 'existential' dangers". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI could pose existential dangers to humankind. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The very first superintelligence will be the last innovation that humanity 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 termination from AI must be an international priority. ^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI specialists warn of threat 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 developing devices that can outthink us in general methods. ^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not present an existential risk". Medium. There is no reason to fear AI as an existential risk. ^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260. ^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live [AI](http://(...)xped.it.io.n.eg.d.g@burton.rene@bestket.com)", Forbes, archived from the original on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil explains strong AI as "maker intelligence with the full series of human intelligence.". ^ "The Age of Artificial Intelligence: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the original on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014. ^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they use for "human-level" intelligence in the physical symbol system hypothesis. ^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the original on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007. ^ "What is artificial superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023. ^ "Artificial intelligence is transforming our world - it is on all of us to make sure that it goes well". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023. ^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to attaining AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat. ^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007. ^ This list of smart traits is based upon the subjects covered by major AI textbooks, consisting of: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998. ^ Johnson 1987. ^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press. ^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body forms the method we think: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The principle of skills". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: 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 original on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014. ^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the initial on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019. ^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What 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 states so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ "Scientists challenge whether computer 'Eugene Goostman' passed Turing test". BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). "People can not distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC] ^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI models like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing everything from the bar examination to AP Biology. Here's a list of difficult exams both AI versions 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 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 new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Expert System" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (Second ed.). New York City: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".). ^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Specifying Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Expert System, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 May 2013. ^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". Stanford University Human-Centered Expert System. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50. ^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). "Expert System, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the original on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022. ^ Simon 1965, p. 96 priced quote in Crevier 1993, p. 109. ^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the original on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008. ^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), priced quote 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 Artificial Intelligence, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York Times. Archived from the initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer researchers and software engineers prevented the term expert system 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 initial on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019. ^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20 ^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300. ^ Gubrud 1997 ^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions Based 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 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 created 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 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 initial on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 - зимен триместър" [Elective courses 2010/2011 - winter season trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limits of machine intelligence: Despite development in maker intelligence, synthetic 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 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. "Expert system will not become 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 expert system will not be recognized". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1 ): 1-9. doi:10.1057/ s41599-020-0494-4. hdl:11250/ 2726984. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 219710554. ^ McCarthy 2007b. ^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (23 November 2015). "The Doomsday Invention: Will synthetic intelligence bring us paradise 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 synthetic intelligence: A survey of skilled viewpoint. In Fundamental concerns of artificial intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham. ^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, modified by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia ^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023. ^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023. ^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The originality of machines: AI takes the Torrance Test". Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185. ^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema. ^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). "Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024". Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024. ^ "Introducing OpenAI o1-preview". OpenAI. 12 September 2024. ^ Knight, Will. "OpenAI Announces a 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 utahsyardsale.com 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 general intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture". Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the original on 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022. ^ Pandey, Mohit; Fernandez, Michael; Gentile, Francesco; Isayev, Olexandr; Tropsha, Alexander; Stern, Abraham C.; Cherkasov, Artem (March 2022). "The transformational function of GPU computing and deep learning in drug discovery". Nature Machine Intelligence. 4 (3 ): 211-221. doi:10.1038/ s42256-022-00463-x. ISSN 2522-5839. S2CID 252081559. ^ Goertzel & Pennachin 2006. ^ a b c (Kurzweil 2005, p. 260). ^ a b c Goertzel 2007. ^ Grace, Katja (2016 ). "Error in Armstrong and Sotala 2012". AI Impacts (blog). Archived from the initial on 4 December 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2020. ^ a b Butz, Martin V. (1 March 2021). "Towards Strong AI". KI - Künstliche Intelligenz. 35 (1 ): 91-101. doi:10.1007/ s13218-021-00705-x. ISSN 1610-1987. S2CID 256065190. ^ Liu, Feng; Shi, Yong; Liu, Ying (2017 ). "Intelligence Quotient and Intelligence Grade of Artificial Intelligence". Annals of Data Science. 4 (2 ): 179-191. arXiv:1709.10242. doi:10.1007/ s40745-017-0109-0. S2CID 37900130. ^ Brien, Jörn (5 October 2017). "Google-KI doppelt so schlau wie Siri" [Google AI is twice as smart 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 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 already 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 first example of an AGI system? This is debatable, however the consensus is that it is not AGI. ... If absolutely nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a happy medium in between narrow and general AI. ^ Quach, Katyanna. "A designer built an AI chatbot utilizing GPT-3 that assisted 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 tasks, from playing video games to controlling robots", TechCrunch, archived from the original 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. could equal human intelligence in 'simply a couple of years,' states CEO of Google's main A.I. research study laboratory". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024. ^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO says AI might pass human tests in five years". Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead". ^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). "Why everybody appears to disagree on how to specify Artificial General Intelligence". Fast Company. ^ Nosta, John (5 January 2024). "The Accelerating Path to Artificial General Intelligence". Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 March 2024. ^ Hickey, Alex. "Whole Brain Emulation: A Giant Step for Neuroscience". Tech Brew. Retrieved 8 November 2023. ^ Sandberg & Boström 2008. ^ Drachman 2005. ^ a b Russell & Norvig 2003. ^ Moravec 1988, p. 61. ^ Moravec 1998. ^ Holmgaard Mersh, Amalie (15 September 2023). "Decade-long European research job maps the human brain". euractiv. ^ Swaminathan, Nikhil (January-February 2011). "Glia-the other brain cells". Discover. Archived from the original on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014. ^ de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser 2008. A vast array of views in existing research, all of which require grounding to some degree ^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How publishing our minds to a computer system might end up being possible". The Conversation. Retrieved 8 November 2023. ^ Searle 1980 ^ For instance: 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 (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 expert system for interest by the field about why a program behaves the method it does. ^ Chalmers, David J. (9 August 2023). "Could a Big Language Model Be Conscious?". Boston Review. ^ Seth, Anil. "Consciousness". New Scientist. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Nagel 1974. ^ "The Google engineer who believes the company's AI has actually come to life". The Washington Post. 11 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Nosta, John (18 December 2023). "Should Expert System 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 surpass advantages?". 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "How we can Gain from Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) - Unite.AI". www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. "What Will Our Society Appear 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: courses, risks, techniques (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom; 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 human beings will ruin 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 implications of expert system - however are we taking AI seriously enough?'". The Independent (UK). Archived from the original on 25 September 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2014. ^ Herger, Mario. "The Gorilla Problem - Enterprise Garage". Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "The remarkable Facebook argument between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI". The fascinating Facebook argument between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the dangers of strong AI (in French). Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Will Artificial Intelligence Doom The Mankind 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 survey". Physica Scripta. 90 (1 ): 018001. doi:10.1088/ 0031-8949/90/ 1/018001. ISSN 0031-8949. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (First ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Chow, Andrew R.; Perrigo, Billy (16 February 2023). "The AI Arms Race Is On. Start Worrying". TIME. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Tetlow, Gemma (12 January 2017). "AI arms race threats spiralling out of control, report 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 hazard posed however expert system can not be disregarded". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ "Humanity, Security & AI, bytes-the-dust.com Oh My! (with Ian Bremmer & Shuman Ghosemajumder)". CAFE. 20 July 2023. Retrieved 15 September 2023. ^ Hamblin, James (9 May 2014). "But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me?". The Atlantic. Archived from the initial on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 12 December 2015. ^ Titcomb, James (30 October 2023). "Big Tech is stoking worries over AI, alert researchers". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain founder states huge 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: oke.zone 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 states 80% of workers could 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 original 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 Look For Expert System. New York, NY: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-02997-3. Darrach, Brad (20 November 1970), "Meet Shakey, the First Electronic Person", Life Magazine, pp. 58-68. Drachman, D. (2005 ), "Do we have brain to spare?", Neurology, 64 (12 ): 2004-2005, doi:10.1212/ 01. WNL.0000166914.38327. BB, PMID 15985565, S2CID 38482114. Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983 ), The Fifth Generation: Artificial Intelligence and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World, Michael Joseph, ISBN 978-0-7181-2401-4. Goertzel, Ben; Pennachin, Cassio, eds. (2006 ), Artificial General Intelligence (PDF), Springer, ISBN 978-3-5402-3733-4, archived from the original (PDF) on 20 March 2013. Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), "Human-level artificial basic intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a reaction to Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott's critique of Kurzweil", Expert system, vol. 171, no. 18, Special Review Issue, pp. 1161-1173, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.011, archived from the original on 7 January 2016, obtained 1 April 2009. Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), "Nanotechnology and International Security", Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the initial on 29 May 2011, recovered 7 May 2011. Howe, J. (November 1994), Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University: a Viewpoint, archived from the original on 17 August 2007, recovered 30 August 2007. Johnson, Mark (1987 ), The body in the mind, Chicago, ISBN 978-0-2264-0317-5. Kurzweil, Ray (2005 ), The Singularity is Near, Viking Press. Lighthill, Professor Sir James (1973 ), "Expert System: A General Survey", Expert System: a paper seminar, Science Research Council. Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Artificial Intelligence: 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 programs that can solve issues and accomplish goals in the world in addition to human beings. Moravec, Hans (1988 ), Mind Children, Harvard University Press Moravec, Hans (1998 ), "When will 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 initial 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 ), Artificial Intelligence: 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, recovered 29 September 2007 Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Sensible 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 ), Expert System: 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, 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: Harper & Row Turing, Alan (October 1950). "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". Mind. 59 (236 ): 433-460. doi:10.1093/ mind/LIX.236.433. ISSN 1460-2113. JSTOR 2251299. S2CID 14636783.
de Vega, Manuel; Glenberg, Arthur; Graesser, Arthur, eds. (2008 ), Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on significance and cognition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-1992-1727-4 Wang, Pei; Goertzel, Ben (2007 ). "Introduction: Aspects of Artificial General Intelligence". Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms: Proceedings of the AGI Workshop 2006. IOS Press. pp. 1-16. ISBN 978-1-5860-3758-1. Archived from the initial on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 - through ResearchGate.
Further reading

Aleksander, Igor (1996 ), Impossible Minds, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 978-1-8609-4036-1 Azevedo FA, Carvalho LR, Grinberg LT, Farfel J, et al. (April 2009), "Equal 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 initial on 18 February 2021, retrieved 4 September 2013 - via ResearchGate Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Expert System Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the initial on 23 July 2014, obtained 31 August 2012 Cukier, Kenneth, "Ready for Robots? How to Think of the Future of AI", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 4 (July/August 2019), pp. 192-98. George Dyson, historian of computing, writes (in what may be called "Dyson's Law") that "Any system easy enough to be easy to understand will not be made complex enough to act wisely, while any system made complex enough to behave wisely will be too complicated to comprehend." (p. 197.) Computer researcher Alex Pentland writes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead easy silly. They work, however they work by strength." (p. 198.). Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the initial on 26 July 2010, recovered 25 July 2010. Gleick, James, "The Fate of Free Choice" (review of Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will, Princeton University Press, 2023, 333 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. "Agency is what differentiates us from makers. For biological creatures, factor and purpose originate from acting worldwide and experiencing the repercussions. Artificial intelligences - disembodied, complete strangers to blood, sweat, and tears - have no event for that." (p. 30.). Halal, William E. "TechCast Article Series: The Automation of Thought" (PDF). Archived from the 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 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 of us close at heart,' ... writes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't rely on federal governments driven by project finance contributions [from tech companies] to press back.' ... Marcus details the demands that citizens need to make of their governments and the tech companies. They consist of transparency on how AI systems work; settlement for people if their data [are] utilized to train LLMs (big model) s and the right to approval to this usage; and the capability to hold tech business liable for the damages they trigger by getting rid of Section 230, enforcing cash penalites, and passing more stringent product liability laws ... Marcus also suggests ... that a new, AI-specific federal firm, comparable to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, may offer the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law professor Chinmayi Sharma ... suggests ... develop [ing] an expert licensing regime for engineers that would operate in a comparable method to medical licenses, malpractice fits, and the Hippocratic oath in medicine. 'What if, like doctors,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers also promised 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 puzzled human beings for years, reveals the constraints of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder secret competitors has actually revealed that although NLP (natural-language processing) designs are capable of unbelievable tasks, their abilities are very much limited by the quantity of context they receive. This [...] might cause [troubles] for researchers who want to use them to do things such as analyze ancient languages. In some cases, there are couple of historic records on long-gone civilizations to function as training data for such a purpose." (p. 82.). Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: People now use A.I. to generate phony videos identical from real ones. Just how much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we suggest realistic videos produced utilizing synthetic intelligence that in fact deceive individuals, then they hardly exist. The fakes 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 much better resembles that of animations, particularly smutty ones." (p. 59.). - Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We need to prevent 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: Is talking with a maker a conversation?", The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16. Marcus, Gary, "Artificial Confidence: Even the latest, buzziest systems of synthetic general intelligence are stymmied by the very same old 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 initial on 3 March 2016, recovered 29 September 2007. Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1963 ), "GPS: A Program that Simulates Human Thought", in Feigenbaum, E. A.; Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, New York City: McGraw-Hill. Omohundro, Steve (2008 ), The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence, provided and dispersed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California. Press, Eyal, "In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition innovation lead cops to overlook inconsistent evidence?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26. Roivainen, Eka, "AI's IQ: ChatGPT aced a [basic intelligence] test however revealed that intelligence can not be determined by IQ alone", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 1 (July/August 2023), p. 7. "Despite its high IQ, ChatGPT fails at jobs that require genuine humanlike reasoning or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT seemed not able to factor rationally and tried to count on its vast database of ... realities stemmed from online texts. " - Scharre, Paul, "Killer Apps: The Real Dangers of an AI Arms Race", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 3 (May/June 2019), pp. 135-44. "Today's AI innovations are effective however unreliable. Rules-based systems can not handle scenarios their programmers did not expect. Learning systems are limited by the information on which they were trained. AI failures have currently led to disaster. Advanced auto-pilot features in automobiles, although they carry out well in some situations, have actually driven cars and trucks without alerting into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked cars and trucks. In the wrong circumstance, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an immediate. When an opponent is attempting to control and hack an AI system, the threats are even greater." (p. 140.). Sutherland, J. G. (1990 ), "Holographic Model of Memory, Learning, and Expression", International Journal of Neural Systems, vol. 1-3, pp. 256-267. - Vincent, James, "Horny Robot Baby Voice: James Vincent on AI chatbots", London Review of Books, vol. 46, no. 19 (10 October 2024), pp. 29-32." [AI chatbot] programs are made possible by brand-new technologies but depend on the timelelss human propensity to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.). Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.