Artificial basic intelligence (AGI) is a kind of expert system (AI) that matches or surpasses human cognitive capabilities across a large variety of cognitive tasks. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is restricted to particular tasks. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, describes AGI that significantly surpasses human cognitive abilities. AGI is thought about among the meanings of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a main objective of AI research study and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 survey recognized 72 active AGI research study and advancement tasks throughout 37 nations. [4]
The timeline for achieving AGI stays a topic of ongoing argument among scientists and specialists. As of 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or decades; others maintain it might take a century or longer; a minority believe it might never ever be accomplished; and another minority claims that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has actually expressed concerns about the fast development towards AGI, suggesting it might be attained earlier than lots of anticipate. [7]
There is debate on the specific definition of AGI and concerning whether modern-day large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early kinds of AGI. [8] AGI is a typical topic in science fiction and futures research studies. [9] [10]
Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. [11] [12] [13] Many experts on AI have stated that alleviating the threat of human termination posed by AGI should be an international concern. [14] [15] Others find the advancement of AGI to be too remote to provide 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, iuridictum.pecina.cz or general smart action. [21]
Some scholastic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer system programs that experience life or consciousness. [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 academic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the exact 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 human beings, [23] while the notion of transformative AI connects to AI having a large influence on society, for instance, similar to the farming or commercial transformation. [24]
A structure for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They specify five levels of AGI: emerging, qualified, expert, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a competent AGI is defined as an AI that exceeds 50% of competent adults in a wide variety of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. a synthetic superintelligence) is likewise specified however with a limit of 100%. They consider large language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]
Characteristics

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

Researchers usually hold that intelligence is required to do all of the following: [27]
factor, usage strategy, solve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty represent understanding, consisting of good sense knowledge plan find out

• interact in natural language
• if necessary, integrate these abilities in completion of any offered goal

Many interdisciplinary techniques (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and decision making) consider additional characteristics such as creativity (the capability to form novel psychological images and principles) [28] and autonomy. [29]
Computer-based systems that exhibit much of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated reasoning, choice support system, robotic, evolutionary computation, smart representative). There is argument about whether modern-day AI systems possess them to a sufficient degree.

Physical characteristics

Other abilities are thought about desirable in intelligent systems, as they might impact intelligence or aid in its expression. These consist of: [30]
- the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and - the ability to act (e.g. move and control objects, modification location to explore, and so on).
This consists of the ability to spot and react to danger. [31]
Although the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the ability to act (e.g. relocation and control objects, change location to explore, etc) can be preferable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical abilities are not strictly needed for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language designs (LLMs) might already be or end up being AGI. Even from a less positive viewpoint on LLMs, there is no company requirement for an AGI to have a human-like type; being a silicon-based computational system suffices, supplied it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This interpretation aligns with the understanding that AGI has actually never ever been proscribed a specific physical embodiment and hence does not demand a capacity for mobility or standard "eyes and ears". [32]
Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests suggested to verify human-level AGI have been considered, including: [33] [34]
The concept of the test is that the machine has to attempt and pretend to be a man, by addressing concerns put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is reasonably convincing. A considerable part of a jury, who must not be skilled about devices, should be taken in by the pretence. [37]
AI-complete issues

An issue is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is believed that in order to resolve it, one would need to carry out AGI, due to the fact that the option is beyond the abilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]
There are numerous problems that have been conjectured to need basic intelligence to resolve in addition to people. Examples include computer system vision, natural language understanding, and handling unforeseen situations while resolving any real-world problem. [48] Even a particular job like translation needs a maker to read and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), comprehend the context (understanding), and consistently reproduce the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these issues need to be resolved simultaneously in order to reach human-level device performance.

However, many of these jobs can now be carried out by modern-day large language designs. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has reached human-level efficiency on many criteria for checking out comprehension and gratisafhalen.be visual thinking. [49]
History

Classical AI

Modern AI research started in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI researchers were convinced that artificial basic intelligence was possible and that it would exist in just a few decades. [51] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon composed in 1965: "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do." [52]
Their predictions were the motivation for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers believed they might develop by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was a specialist [53] on the task of making HAL 9000 as practical as possible according to the consensus forecasts of the time. He stated in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of developing 'synthetic intelligence' will significantly be fixed". [54]
Several classical AI tasks, such as Doug Lenat's Cyc task (that began in 1984), and Allen Newell's Soar project, were directed at AGI.

However, in the early 1970s, it became obvious that scientists had grossly ignored the trouble of the job. Funding agencies ended up being of AGI and put scientists under increasing pressure to produce useful "used AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project restored interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that consisted of AGI goals like "bring on a table talk". [58] In reaction to this and the success of expert systems, both market and federal government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, self-confidence in AI stunningly collapsed in the late 1980s, and surgiteams.com the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever satisfied. [60] For the second time in 20 years, AI researchers who predicted the impending accomplishment of AGI had been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a reputation for making vain guarantees. They became reluctant to make predictions at all [d] and prevented reference of "human level" expert system 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 concentrating on specific sub-problems where AI can produce proven outcomes and business applications, such as speech recognition and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now utilized extensively throughout the technology market, and research study in this vein is greatly moneyed in both academic community and market. Since 2018 [upgrade], development in this field was thought about an emerging pattern, and a mature 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 developed by integrating programs that solve various sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:

I am positive that this bottom-up path to synthetic intelligence will one day fulfill the traditional top-down path more than half way, all set to provide the real-world skills and the commonsense knowledge that has actually been so frustratingly elusive in thinking 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 disputed. For example, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the symbol grounding hypothesis by specifying:

The expectation has often been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way satisfy "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches someplace in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper are legitimate, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is actually only one feasible path from sense to symbols: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software level of a computer system will never be reached by this route (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we need to even try to reach such a level, because it looks as if getting there would simply amount to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic significances (thereby simply reducing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer system). [66]
Modern synthetic basic intelligence research study

The term "synthetic basic intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a discussion of the implications of totally 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 kind of AGI, identified by the ability to maximise a mathematical meaning of intelligence rather than exhibit human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal synthetic intelligence. [70]
The term AGI was re-introduced and promoted by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research activity in 2006 was explained by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and preliminary results". The very first summer 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 featuring a number of visitor lecturers.

As of 2023 [upgrade], a small number of computer scientists are active in AGI research, and many add to a series of AGI conferences. However, progressively more scientists are interested in open-ended knowing, [76] [77] which is the concept of permitting AI to continually learn and innovate like people do.

Feasibility

Since 2023, the advancement and potential accomplishment of AGI stays a topic of extreme debate within the AI neighborhood. While standard agreement held that AGI was a far-off objective, current developments have led some researchers and industry figures to declare that early forms of AGI may already exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do". This prediction stopped working to come true. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is unlikely in the 21st century due to the fact that it would require "unforeseeable and fundamentally unforeseeable breakthroughs" and a "scientifically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield claimed the gulf in between contemporary computing and human-level synthetic intelligence is as large as the gulf in between present space flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]
A more difficulty is the absence of clarity in defining what intelligence involves. Does it require awareness? Must it display the capability to set goals 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 preparation, thinking, and causal understanding needed? Does intelligence need explicitly replicating the brain and its specific professors? Does it need emotions? [81]
Most AI researchers believe strong AI can be attained in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, reject the possibility of achieving strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who believe human-level AI will be achieved, but 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 surveys performed in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the mean price quote among experts for when they would be 50% confident AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the poll, with the mean being 2081. Of the experts, 16.5% addressed with "never ever" when asked the very same concern however with a 90% self-confidence instead. [85] [86] Further existing AGI progress factors to consider can be found above Tests for verifying human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute discovered that "over [a] 60-year amount of time there is a strong bias towards predicting the arrival of human-level AI as between 15 and 25 years from the time the prediction was made". They evaluated 95 predictions made in between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]
In 2023, Microsoft scientists published an in-depth evaluation of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, our company believe that it could reasonably be considered as an early (yet still insufficient) version of a synthetic general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outshines 99% of people on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]
Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig wrote in 2023 that a considerable level of basic intelligence has actually already been accomplished with frontier models. They composed that hesitation to this view comes from four main factors: a "healthy skepticism about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or strategies", a "devotion to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "concern about the economic ramifications of AGI". [91]
2023 likewise marked the emergence of large multimodal designs (big language models efficient in processing or generating multiple methods such as text, audio, and images). [92]
In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the first of a series of designs that "spend more time believing before they react". According to Mira Murati, this ability to think before reacting represents a brand-new, additional paradigm. It enhances model outputs by spending more computing power when producing the answer, whereas the model scaling paradigm enhances outputs by increasing the model size, training information and training calculate power. [93] [94]
An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the business had actually achieved AGI, specifying, "In my opinion, we have actually currently accomplished AGI and it's much more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "better than any human at any job", it is "much better than the majority of human beings at most jobs." He likewise dealt with criticisms that large language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their learning procedure to the clinical approach of observing, assuming, and validating. These statements have actually stimulated argument, as they count on a broad and unconventional definition of AGI-traditionally understood as AI that matches human intelligence across all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's designs demonstrate impressive adaptability, they may not fully fulfill this requirement. Notably, Kazemi's comments came soon after OpenAI removed "AGI" from the terms of its partnership with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the business's strategic intentions. [95]
Timescales

Progress in expert system has historically gone through periods of fast development separated by durations when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were essential advances in hardware, software or both to develop area for further development. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware available in the twentieth century was not sufficient to execute deep learning, which requires large numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]
In the intro to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that quotes of the time required before a really versatile AGI is built vary from 10 years to over a century. As of 2007 [update], the consensus in the AGI research study community appeared to be that the timeline discussed by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have actually provided a broad variety of viewpoints on whether development will be this quick. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions found a predisposition towards anticipating that the beginning of AGI would happen within 16-26 years for modern-day and historic predictions alike. That paper has been criticized for how it categorized opinions as professional or non-expert. [104]
In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton established a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competition with a top-5 test mistake rate of 15.3%, considerably better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the traditional method utilized a weighted sum of scores from various pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered the initial ground-breaker of the existing deep knowing wave. [105]
In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu conducted intelligence tests on publicly available and freely available weak AI such as Google AI, Apple's Siri, and others. At the optimum, these AIs reached an IQ value of about 47, which corresponds around to a six-year-old kid in very first grade. An adult pertains to about 100 usually. Similar tests were carried out in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching a maximum worth of 27. [106] [107]
In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language model efficient in performing lots of varied tasks without specific training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat post, while there is agreement that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is thought about by some to be too advanced to be categorized as a narrow AI system. [108]
In the exact same year, Jason Rohrer utilized his GPT-3 account to establish a chatbot, and supplied a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested for modifications to the chatbot to comply with their safety standards; Rohrer disconnected Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]
In 2022, DeepMind developed Gato, a "general-purpose" system efficient in carrying out more than 600 various jobs. [110]
In 2023, Microsoft Research released a research study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, competing that it showed more general intelligence than previous AI designs and showed human-level performance in jobs spanning several domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research triggered an argument on whether GPT-4 could be considered an early, insufficient version of synthetic basic intelligence, emphasizing the requirement for further exploration and evaluation of such systems. [111]
In 2023, the AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton mentioned that: [112]
The idea that this stuff might really get smarter than individuals - a couple of people believed that, [...] But the majority of people thought it was method off. And I believed it was way off. I believed it was 30 to 50 years and even longer away. Obviously, I no longer believe that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis likewise said that "The development in the last few years has actually been quite incredible", which he sees no factor why it would decrease, anticipating AGI within a decade and even a couple of years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, mentioned his expectation that within five years, AI would can passing any test a minimum of in addition to human beings. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI worker, approximated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably possible". [115]
Whole brain emulation

While the development of transformer models like in ChatGPT is thought about the most promising course to AGI, [116] [117] whole brain emulation can act as an alternative approach. With entire brain simulation, a brain design is developed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and after that copying and simulating it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation design should be sufficiently faithful to the initial, so that it behaves in practically the very same way as the initial brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is discussed in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study purposes. It has actually been talked about in expert system research [103] as a technique to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that could provide the necessary comprehensive understanding are enhancing rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] predicts that a map of enough quality will appear on a comparable timescale to the computing power needed to imitate it.

Early approximates

For low-level brain simulation, a really effective cluster of computers or GPUs would be needed, provided the huge quantity of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other nerve cells. The brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number decreases with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates differ for an adult, ranging from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A price quote of the brain's processing power, based upon a basic switch design for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]
In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at different quotes for the hardware needed to equal the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 calculations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "computation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a procedure used to rate present supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be equivalent to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was achieved in 2022.) He utilized this figure to predict the essential hardware would be readily available at some point in between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential growth 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 developed an especially comprehensive and publicly accessible 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 synthetic nerve cell design presumed by Kurzweil and utilized in many existing synthetic neural network applications is basic compared to biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely need to record the detailed cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, presently comprehended just in broad overview. The overhead presented by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (especially on a molecular scale) would need computational powers numerous orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's price quote. In addition, the price quotes do not account for glial cells, which are understood to play a role in cognitive processes. [125]
A basic criticism of the simulated brain technique originates from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is an important element of human intelligence and is essential to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is right, any fully practical brain model will require to encompass more than simply the nerve cells (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 viewpoint

"Strong AI" as defined in viewpoint

In 1980, thinker John Searle coined the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese room argument. [128] He proposed a difference in between two hypotheses about expert system: [f]
Strong AI hypothesis: A synthetic intelligence system can have "a mind" and "consciousness". Weak AI hypothesis: A synthetic intelligence system can (only) act like it believes and has a mind and awareness.
The very first one he called "strong" since it makes a stronger declaration: it presumes something unique has occurred to the machine that goes beyond those capabilities that we can check. The behaviour of a "weak AI" maker would be specifically identical to a "strong AI" machine, but the latter would also have subjective mindful experience. This use is likewise common in scholastic AI research and textbooks. [129]
In contrast to Searle and traditional AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil use the term "strong AI" to suggest "human level artificial general intelligence". [102] This is not the like Searle's strong AI, unless it is presumed that consciousness is necessary for human-level AGI. Academic theorists such as Searle do not think that is the case, and to most artificial intelligence 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 actually has mind - certainly, there would be no method to tell. For AI research study, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is comparable to the statement "synthetic basic intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for approved, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research study, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 different things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have different meanings, and some aspects play significant roles in science fiction and the principles of artificial intelligence:

Sentience (or "incredible consciousness"): The ability to "feel" perceptions or emotions subjectively, rather than the capability to factor about perceptions. Some theorists, such as David Chalmers, use the term "consciousness" to refer specifically to remarkable consciousness, which is approximately comparable to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience occurs is referred to as the difficult problem of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel described in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be mindful. If we are not conscious, then it does not seem 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 feel like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat seems conscious (i.e., has consciousness) but a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the company's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually attained life, though this claim was widely contested by other specialists. [135]
Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a separate person, particularly to be purposely mindful of one's own thoughts. This is opposed to just being the "subject of one's thought"-an os or debugger is able to be "familiar with itself" (that is, to represent itself in the same method it represents everything else)-but this is not what individuals typically imply when they use the term "self-awareness". [g]
These traits have an ethical measurement. AI sentience would generate issues of well-being and legal security, likewise to animals. [136] Other elements of consciousness related to cognitive capabilities are likewise relevant to the concept of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to incorporate innovative AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emerging concern. [138]
Benefits

AGI might have a broad range of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI might help alleviate various issues worldwide such as appetite, poverty and health issue. [139]
AGI could improve efficiency and performance in many tasks. For example, in public health, AGI might accelerate medical research study, significantly against cancer. [140] It could look after the elderly, [141] and democratize access to quick, high-quality medical diagnostics. It might use fun, inexpensive and personalized education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist could end up being outdated if the wealth produced is properly redistributed. [141] [142] This likewise raises the question of the place of people in a drastically automated society.

AGI could likewise help to make logical choices, and to prepare for and prevent disasters. It might likewise help to gain the advantages of possibly devastating innovations such as nanotechnology or environment engineering, while avoiding the associated risks. [143] If an AGI's main goal is to prevent existential disasters such as human extinction (which might be challenging if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being true), [144] it might take measures to drastically reduce the dangers [143] while decreasing the effect of these procedures on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential risks

AGI may represent numerous kinds of existential danger, which are dangers that threaten "the premature extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or the irreversible and drastic damage of its capacity for preferable future development". [145] The threat of human termination from AGI has actually been the topic of many disputes, however there is likewise the possibility that the development of AGI would cause a permanently flawed future. Notably, it might be used to spread and maintain the set of values of whoever establishes it. If humanity still has ethical blind spots comparable to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, preventing moral progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI might help with mass security and brainwashing, which might be utilized to produce a steady repressive worldwide totalitarian regime. [147] [148] There is also a threat for the devices themselves. If devices that are sentient or otherwise worthy of ethical factor to consider are mass developed in the future, taking part in a civilizational path that forever overlooks their well-being and interests could be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI might improve humankind's future and help in reducing other existential dangers, Toby Ord calls these existential risks "an argument for continuing with due caution", not for "deserting AI". [147]
Risk of loss of control and human extinction

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

So, facing possible futures of enormous benefits and dangers, the professionals are undoubtedly doing whatever possible to ensure the finest outcome, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll show up in a few decades,' 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 occurring with AI. [153]
The potential fate of mankind has often been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast specifies that higher intelligence enabled humanity to dominate gorillas, which are now vulnerable in methods that they could not have prepared for. As a result, the gorilla has actually ended up being a threatened types, not out of malice, but simply as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]
The skeptic Yann LeCun considers that AGIs will have no desire to dominate humanity and that we ought to take care not to anthropomorphize them and interpret their intents as we would for humans. He said that individuals will not be "smart adequate to create super-intelligent machines, yet unbelievably silly to the point of giving it moronic goals without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the concept of critical convergence recommends that nearly whatever their objectives, intelligent agents will have factors to attempt to make it through and acquire more power as intermediary actions to achieving these goals. And that this does not require having feelings. [156]
Many scholars who are concerned about existential danger advocate for more research into fixing the "control problem" to respond to the concern: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers implement to maximise the likelihood that their recursively-improving AI would continue to act in a friendly, instead of harmful, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is made complex by the AI arms race (which might cause a race to the bottom of security precautions in order to launch products before competitors), [159] and making use of AI in weapon systems. [160]
The thesis that AI can position existential risk also has detractors. Skeptics typically state that AGI is not likely in the short-term, or that concerns about AGI distract from other concerns related to current AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for many individuals beyond the technology industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are already viewed as though they were AGI, resulting in additional 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 unreasonable belief in an omnipotent God. [163] Some scientists think that the communication projects on AI existential risk by particular AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) may be an at effort at regulative capture and to pump up interest in their items. [164] [165]
In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, in addition to other industry leaders and scientists, released a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global concern alongside other societal-scale threats such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]
Mass joblessness

Researchers from OpenAI approximated that "80% of the U.S. labor links.gtanet.com.br force might have at least 10% of their work jobs affected by the intro of LLMs, while around 19% of workers might see a minimum of 50% of their tasks affected". [166] [167] They consider workplace employees to be the most exposed, for instance mathematicians, accounting professionals or web designers. [167] AGI might have a better autonomy, ability to make choices, to user interface with other computer system tools, however likewise to control robotized bodies.

According to Stephen Hawking, the result of automation on the quality of life will depend on how the wealth will be rearranged: [142]
Everyone can enjoy a life of glamorous leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or many individuals can end up miserably bad if the machine-owners effectively lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

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

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities comparable to those of the animal or human brain AI result AI safety - Research location on making AI safe and useful AI alignment - AI conformance to the desired objective A.I. Rising - 2018 film directed by Lazar Bodroža Artificial intelligence Automated artificial intelligence - Process of automating the application of maker knowing BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research effort revealed by the Obama administration China Brain Project Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre General video game playing - Ability of artificial intelligence to play different games Generative synthetic intelligence - AI system efficient in generating content in reaction to prompts Human Brain Project - Scientific research task Intelligence amplification - Use of details technology to augment human intelligence (IA). Machine ethics - Moral behaviours of manufactured machines. Moravec's paradox. Multi-task learning - Solving multiple machine discovering jobs at the very same time. Neural scaling law - Statistical law in artificial intelligence. Outline of synthetic intelligence - Overview of and topical guide to expert system. Transhumanism - Philosophical motion. Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or kind of artificial intelligence. Transfer knowing - Artificial intelligence strategy. Loebner Prize - Annual AI competition. Hardware for expert system - Hardware specifically designed and optimized for artificial intelligence. Weak expert system - Form of expert system.
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 short article Chinese space. ^ AI founder John McCarthy writes: "we can not yet characterize in basic what type of computational procedures we want to call smart. " [26] (For a conversation of some meanings of intelligence utilized by artificial intelligence scientists, see approach of synthetic intelligence.). ^ The Lighthill report particularly slammed AI's "grandiose goals" and led the taking apart of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA ended up being identified to fund only "mission-oriented direct research, rather than basic undirected research study". [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy composes "it would be a great relief to the rest of the employees in AI if the creators of new general formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more protected type than has actually sometimes been the case." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More just recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil introduced. ^ As specified in a basic AI book: "The assertion that makers could possibly act intelligently (or, perhaps 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 really believing (instead of simulating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is artificial narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is designed to perform a single job. ^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to guarantee that synthetic general intelligence benefits all of mankind. ^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's new objective is producing synthetic general 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 determined 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 Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023. ^ "AI leader Geoffrey Hinton stops Google and cautions of risk ahead". The New York Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is difficult 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 try outs GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 shows 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 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 City Times. The genuine danger is not AI itself but the way we release it. ^ "Impressed by synthetic intelligence? Experts say AGI is coming next, and it has 'existential' threats". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI could posture existential dangers to humanity. ^ 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 humanity requires to make. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. Mitigating the threat of extinction from AI ought to be a global top priority. ^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI specialists alert of threat of termination from AI. ^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York Times. We are far from producing makers that can outthink us in basic methods. ^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not provide an existential risk". Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential risk. ^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260. ^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the initial on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil describes strong AI as "device intelligence with the complete series 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 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 ensure that it goes well". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023. ^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to accomplishing AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat. ^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007. ^ This list of smart qualities is based on the topics covered by major AI textbooks, including: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998. ^ Johnson 1987. ^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York City: Academic Press. ^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body forms the way 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 competence". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The principle of competence". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the initial on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014. ^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the 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 genuine kid - the Turing Test states so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ "Scientists contest 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 whatever from the bar exam to AP Biology. Here's a list of challenging tests both AI versions have passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Artificial Intelligence Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Capitalize on It". Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is undependable. The Winograd Schema is outdated. Coffee is the answer". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder suggested checking 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 brand-new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Expert System" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Expert System (Second ed.). New York: 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 Expert System. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50. ^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). "Artificial Intelligence, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the original on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022. ^ Simon 1965, p. 96 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 ), priced estimate in Crevier (1993, p. 109). ^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994. ^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment". ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22. ^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see likewise Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212. ^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). "Reply to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the 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 scientists and software engineers prevented the term artificial intelligence for fear of being viewed as wild-eyed dreamers. ^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26 ^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019. ^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20 ^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300. ^ Gubrud 1997 ^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based Upon Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Technology an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the original on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022. ^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022. ^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410. ^ "Who coined the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the initial on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., by means of Life 3.0: 'The term "AGI" was promoted by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel' ^ Wang & Goertzel 2007 ^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summertime school: June 22 - July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009". Archived from the original on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 - зимен триместър" [Elective courses 2010/2011 - winter season 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 machine intelligence, synthetic general intelligence is still a major 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 turn into a Frankenstein's monster". The Guardian. Archived from the initial on 17 September 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2014. ^ Deane, George (2022 ). "Machines That Feel and Think: The Role of Affective Feelings and Mental Action in (Artificial) General Intelligence". Artificial Life. 28 (3 ): 289-309. doi:10.1162/ artl_a_00368. ISSN 1064-5462. PMID 35881678. S2CID 251069071. ^ a b c Clocksin 2003. ^ Fjelland, Ragnar (17 June 2020). "Why basic expert system will not be 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 synthetic intelligence bring us utopia or damage?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016. ^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future development in synthetic intelligence: A study of professional viewpoint. In Fundamental problems of expert system (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham. ^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, edited by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia ^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023. ^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023. ^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The originality of 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, forum.altaycoins.com 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 basic intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture". Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the initial on 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022. ^ Pandey, Mohit; Fernandez, Michael; Gentile, Francesco; Isayev, Olexandr; Tropsha, Alexander; Stern, Abraham C.; Cherkasov, Artem (March 2022). "The transformational function of GPU computing and deep 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 original on 4 December 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2020. ^ a b Butz, Martin V. (1 March 2021). "Towards Strong AI". KI - Künstliche Intelligenz. 35 (1 ): 91-101. doi:10.1007/ s13218-021-00705-x. ISSN 1610-1987. S2CID 256065190. ^ Liu, Feng; Shi, Yong; Liu, Ying (2017 ). "Intelligence Quotient and Intelligence Grade of Expert System". Annals of Data Science. 4 (2 ): 179-191. arXiv:1709.10242. doi:10.1007/ s40745-017-0109-0. S2CID 37900130. ^ Brien, Jörn (5 October 2017). "Google-KI doppelt so schlau wie Siri" [Google AI is two times as clever as Siri - however a six-year-old beats both] (in German). Archived from the initial on 3 January 2019. Retrieved 2 January 2019. ^ Grossman, Gary (3 September 2020). "We're going into the AI twilight zone in between narrow and general AI". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020. Certainly, too, there are those who claim 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 arguable, but the agreement is that it is not AGI. ... If nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a happy medium in between narrow and general AI. ^ Quach, Katyanna. "A designer developed an AI chatbot utilizing GPT-3 that helped a guy speak again to his late fiancée. OpenAI shut it down". The Register. Archived from the original on 16 October 2021. Retrieved 16 October 2021. ^ Wiggers, Kyle (13 May 2022), "DeepMind's new AI can perform over 600 tasks, from playing games to controlling robots", TechCrunch, archived from the initial on 16 June 2022, recovered 12 June 2022. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (22 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL] ^ Metz, Cade (1 May 2023). "' The Godfather of A.I.' Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ Bove, Tristan. "A.I. could equal human intelligence in 'just a couple of years,' states CEO of Google's main A.I. research laboratory". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024. ^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO states AI might pass human tests in five years". Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead". ^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). "Why everybody seems to disagree on how to specify Artificial General Intelligence". Fast Company. ^ Nosta, John (5 January 2024). "The Accelerating Path to Artificial General Intelligence". Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 March 2024. ^ Hickey, Alex. "Whole Brain Emulation: A 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 project maps the human brain". euractiv. ^ Swaminathan, Nikhil (January-February 2011). "Glia-the other brain cells". Discover. Archived from the original on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014. ^ de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser 2008. A wide variety of views in existing research study, all of which require grounding to some degree ^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How publishing our minds to a computer might become 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 (quoted in "AITopics"),. Will Biological Computers Enable Artificially Intelligent Machines to Become Persons? Archived 13 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Anthony Tongen.


^ a b c Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 947. ^ though see Explainable expert system for interest by the field about why a program acts the way it does. ^ Chalmers, David J. (9 August 2023). "Could a Large 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 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 cost outweigh benefits?". 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "How we can Benefit from Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) - Unite.AI". www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. "What Will Our Society Look Like When Artificial Intelligence Is Everywhere?". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b Stevenson, Matt (8 October 2015). "Answers to Stephen Hawking's AMA are Here!". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ a b Bostrom, Nick (2017 ). " § Preferred order of arrival". Superintelligence: paths, threats, techniques (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, UK; New York City, New York City, USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Piper, Kelsey (19 November 2018). "How technological progress is making it likelier than ever that human beings will destroy ourselves". Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). "Climate alter an 'existential security danger' to Australia, Senate query states". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023. ^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York City, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6. ^ a b Ord, Toby (2020 ). "Chapter 5: Future Risks, Unaligned Artificial Intelligence". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9. ^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious". Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). "Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ a b "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence takes a look at the implications of expert system - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'". The Independent (UK). Archived from the original on 25 September 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2014. ^ Herger, Mario. "The Gorilla Problem - Enterprise Garage". Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "The remarkable Facebook debate in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and forum.pinoo.com.tr Yoshua Bengio about the dangers of strong AI". The interesting Facebook debate between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI (in French). Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Will Expert System Doom The Human Race Within The Next 100 Years?". HuffPost. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sotala, Kaj; Yampolskiy, Roman V. (19 December 2014). "Responses to catastrophic AGI threat: a study". Physica Scripta. 90 (1 ): 018001. doi:10.1088/ 0031-8949/90/ 1/018001. ISSN 0031-8949. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (First ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Chow, Andrew R.; Perrigo, Billy (16 February 2023). "The AI Arms Race Is On. Start Worrying". TIME. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Tetlow, Gemma (12 January 2017). "AI arms race threats spiralling out of control, report cautions". Financial Times. Archived from the initial on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). "Experts disagree over danger postured however synthetic intelligence can not be overlooked". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ "Humanity, Security & AI, Oh My! (with Ian Bremmer & Shuman Ghosemajumder)". CAFE. 20 July 2023. Retrieved 15 September 2023. ^ Hamblin, James (9 May 2014). "But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me?". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 12 December 2015. ^ Titcomb, James (30 October 2023). "Big Tech is stiring fears over AI, warn scientists". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain founder states huge tech is lying about AI termination danger". 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 potential of big language designs". OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). "OpenAI states 80% of workers might see their tasks affected by AI. These are the jobs most impacted". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk states we require universal fundamental earnings because 'in the future, manual labor will be a choice'". Business Insider. Archived from the initial on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Sources

UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the initial on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021. Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press. Clocksin, William (August 2003), "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, NY: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-02997-3. Darrach, Brad (20 November 1970), "Meet Shakey, the First Electronic Person", Life Magazine, pp. 58-68. Drachman, D. (2005 ), "Do we have brain to spare?", Neurology, 64 (12 ): 2004-2005, doi:10.1212/ 01. WNL.0000166914.38327. BB, PMID 15985565, S2CID 38482114. Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983 ), The Fifth Generation: Expert System and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World, Michael Joseph, ISBN 978-0-7181-2401-4. Goertzel, Ben; Pennachin, Cassio, eds. (2006 ), Artificial General Intelligence (PDF), Springer, ISBN 978-3-5402-3733-4, archived from the original (PDF) on 20 March 2013. Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), "Human-level artificial basic intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a reaction to Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott's 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, retrieved 1 April 2009. Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), "Nanotechnology and International Security", Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the original on 29 May 2011, obtained 7 May 2011. Howe, J. (November 1994), Expert System at Edinburgh University: a Point of view, archived from the initial on 17 August 2007, retrieved 30 August 2007. Johnson, Mark (1987 ), The body in the mind, Chicago, ISBN 978-0-2264-0317-5. Kurzweil, Ray (2005 ), The Singularity is Near, Viking Press. Lighthill, Professor Sir James (1973 ), "Expert System: A General Survey", Expert System: a paper seminar, Science Research Council. Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Expert System: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving (fifth ed.), The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., p. 720, ISBN 978-0-8053-4780-7. McCarthy, John (2007b). What is Expert system?. Stanford University. The supreme effort is to make computer system programs that can solve issues and attain objectives on the planet as well as humans. Moravec, Hans (1988 ), Mind Children, Harvard University Press Moravec, Hans (1998 ), "When will computer system hardware match the human brain?", Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 1, archived from the initial on 15 June 2006, 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, 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 ), Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, ISBN 978-1-5586-0467-4 NRC (1999 ), "Developments in Artificial Intelligence", Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research, National Academy Press, archived from the initial on 12 January 2008, obtained 29 September 2007 Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Rational Approach, New York City: Oxford University Press, archived from the original on 25 July 2009, retrieved 6 December 2007 Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003 ), Expert System: A Modern Approach (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-790395-2 Sandberg, Anders; Boström, Nick (2008 ), Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap (PDF), Technical Report # 2008-3, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University, archived (PDF) from the initial on 25 March 2020, retrieved 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, obtained 3 September 2020 Simon, H. A. (1965 ), The Shape of Automation for Men and Management, New York: Harper & Row Turing, Alan (October 1950). "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". Mind. 59 (236 ): 433-460. doi:10.1093/ mind/LIX.236.433. ISSN 1460-2113. JSTOR 2251299. S2CID 14636783.
de Vega, Manuel; Glenberg, Arthur; Graesser, Arthur, eds. (2008 ), Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-1992-1727-4 Wang, Pei; Goertzel, Ben (2007 ). "Introduction: Aspects of Artificial General Intelligence". Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms: Proceedings of the AGI Workshop 2006. IOS Press. pp. 1-16. ISBN 978-1-5860-3758-1. Archived from the initial on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 - by means of ResearchGate.
Further reading

Aleksander, Igor (1996 ), Impossible Minds, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 978-1-8609-4036-1 Azevedo FA, Carvalho LR, Grinberg LT, Farfel J, et al. (April 2009), "Equal numbers of neuronal and nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled-up primate brain", The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 513 (5 ): 532-541, doi:10.1002/ cne.21974, PMID 19226510, S2CID 5200449, archived from the original on 18 February 2021, retrieved 4 September 2013 - via ResearchGate Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Expert System Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the original on 23 July 2014, retrieved 31 August 2012 Cukier, Kenneth, "Ready for Robots? How to Consider 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 simple sufficient to be reasonable will not be complicated enough to act wisely, while any system complicated enough to behave wisely will be too made complex to understand." (p. 197.) Computer researcher Alex Pentland writes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead easy silly. 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 Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. "Agency is what distinguishes us from makers. For biological creatures, reason and function originate from acting worldwide and experiencing the consequences. Expert systems - 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 original (PDF) on 6 June 2013. - Halpern, Sue, "The Coming Tech Autocracy" (review of Verity Harding, AI Needs You: How We Can Change AI's Future and Save Our Own, Princeton University Press, 274 pp.; Gary Marcus, Taming Silicon Valley: How We Can Ensure That AI Works for Us, MIT Press, 235 pp.; Daniela Rus and Gregory Mone, The Mind's Mirror: Risk and Reward in the Age of AI, Norton, 280 pp.; Madhumita Murgia, Code Dependent: Living in the Shadow of AI, Henry Holt, 311 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. "' We can't reasonably expect that those who wish 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 federal governments driven by project financing contributions [from tech business] to push back.' ... Marcus details the needs that citizens ought to make of their federal governments and the tech companies. They consist of transparency on how AI systems work; compensation for individuals if their data [are] used to train LLMs (big language design) s and the right to grant this use; and the ability to hold tech business responsible for the harms they bring on by getting rid of Section 230, imposing money penalites, and passing stricter item liability laws ... Marcus likewise recommends ... that a brand-new, AI-specific federal firm, comparable to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, may provide the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law professor Chinmayi Sharma ... suggests ... develop [ing] a professional licensing program for engineers that would function in a similar method to medical licenses, malpractice suits, and the Hippocratic oath in medication. 'What if, like doctors,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers also vowed to do no harm?'" (p. 46.). Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), "Abstraction and reformulation in expert system", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 358, no. 1435, pp. 1197-1204, doi:10.1098/ rstb.2003.1317, PMC 1693218, PMID 12903653. Hughes-Castleberry, Kenna, "A Murder Mystery Puzzle: The literary puzzle Cain's Jawbone, which has actually stumped people for years, exposes the constraints of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder mystery competitors has actually revealed that although NLP (natural-language processing) designs are capable of amazing accomplishments, their abilities are quite limited by the quantity of context they receive. This [...] could cause [troubles] for scientists who intend to utilize them to do things such as evaluate ancient languages. In some cases, there are few historic records on long-gone civilizations to function as training data for such a purpose." (p. 82.). Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: People now utilize A.I. to produce phony videos identical from real ones. How much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we suggest reasonable videos produced utilizing expert system that actually trick people, then they barely exist. The phonies aren't deep, and the deeps aren't fake. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in basic, operating in our media as counterfeited proof. Their role much better looks like that of cartoons, specifically smutty ones." (p. 59.). - Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We must avoid humanizing machine-learning models used in scientific research", Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81. Lepore, Jill, "The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a machine a discussion?", The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16. Marcus, Gary, "Artificial Confidence: Even the latest, buzziest systems of synthetic basic intelligence are stymmied by the usual problems", Scientific American, vol. 327, no. 4 (October 2022), pp. 42-45. McCarthy, John (October 2007), "From here to human-level AI", Expert System, 171 (18 ): 1174-1182, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.009. McCorduck, Pamela (2004 ), Machines Who Think (second ed.), Natick, Massachusetts: A. K. Peters, ISBN 1-5688-1205-1. Moravec, Hans (1976 ), The Role of Raw Power in Intelligence, archived from the original on 3 March 2016, obtained 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 Expert system, provided and dispersed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California. Press, Eyal, "In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition technology lead authorities to ignore contradictory evidence?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26. Roivainen, Eka, "AI's IQ: ChatGPT aced a [basic intelligence] test but 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 genuine humanlike thinking or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT seemed unable to factor rationally and tried to depend on its vast database of ... truths originated from online texts. " - Scharre, Paul, "Killer Apps: The Real Dangers of an AI Arms Race", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 3 (May/June 2019), pp. 135-44. "Today's AI technologies are powerful but unreliable. Rules-based systems can not handle scenarios their developers did not prepare for. Learning systems are limited by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have actually already resulted in tragedy. Advanced autopilot functions in cars and trucks, although they perform well in some circumstances, have driven cars without alerting into trucks, concrete barriers, photorum.eclat-mauve.fr and parked automobiles. In the incorrect scenario, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an immediate. When an opponent is trying to manipulate and hack an AI system, the dangers are even higher." (p. 140.). Sutherland, J. G. (1990 ), "Holographic Model of Memory, Learning, and Expression", International Journal of Neural Systems, vol. 1-3, pp. 256-267. - Vincent, James, "Horny Robot Baby Voice: James Vincent on AI chatbots", London Review of Books, vol. 46, no. 19 (10 October 2024), pp. 29-32." [AI chatbot] programs are made possible by new innovations but rely on the timelelss human propensity to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.). Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.