GitLab

Artificial basic intelligence (AGI) is a kind of expert system (AI) that matches or goes beyond human cognitive abilities across a vast array of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to specific tasks. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, describes AGI that significantly surpasses human cognitive capabilities. AGI is considered one of the meanings of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a main goal of AI research study and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 study determined 72 active AGI research study and development jobs throughout 37 countries. [4]
The timeline for attaining AGI stays a subject of continuous argument among researchers and professionals. Since 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or years; others maintain it might take a century or longer; a minority think it may never be attained; and another minority claims that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has revealed concerns about the rapid progress towards AGI, recommending it could be accomplished faster than many expect. [7]
There is argument on the precise definition of AGI and concerning whether modern-day large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early forms 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 professionals on AI have mentioned that alleviating the risk of human extinction 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 danger. [16] [17]
Terminology

AGI is likewise understood as strong AI, [18] [19] full AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level intelligent AI, or basic smart action. [21]
Some scholastic sources book the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience life or awareness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to resolve one particular issue but lacks general cognitive capabilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness nor have a mind in the very same sense as people. [a]
Related ideas include artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical kind of AGI that is a lot more normally smart than humans, [23] while the concept of transformative AI connects to AI having a large impact on society, for example, similar to the agricultural or industrial transformation. [24]
A structure for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They define five levels of AGI: emerging, skilled, expert, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a proficient AGI is defined as an AI that exceeds 50% of skilled grownups in a wide variety of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is similarly specified however with a threshold of 100%. They consider large language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]
Characteristics

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

Researchers typically hold that intelligence is required to do all of the following: [27]
factor, use method, resolve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty represent knowledge, including common sense understanding strategy learn

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

Many interdisciplinary techniques (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and decision making) think about additional characteristics such as creativity (the ability to form novel psychological images and principles) [28] and morphomics.science autonomy. [29]
Computer-based systems that display many of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated thinking, choice assistance system, robotic, evolutionary computation, intelligent representative). There is debate about whether modern-day AI systems possess them to an appropriate degree.

Physical qualities

Other abilities are thought about preferable in smart systems, as they might affect intelligence or help 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 things, modification location to check out, and so on).
This includes the capability to find and react to danger. [31]
Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc) and the capability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate things, modification place to explore, and so on) can be preferable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly required for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that large language designs (LLMs) might already be or become AGI. Even from a less positive viewpoint on LLMs, there is no company requirement for an AGI to have a human-like form; being a silicon-based computational system is enough, supplied it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This interpretation lines up with the understanding that AGI has never ever been proscribed a particular physical embodiment and hence does not demand a capability for mobility or conventional "eyes and ears". [32]
Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests indicated to validate human-level AGI have been considered, consisting of: [33] [34]
The concept of the test is that the maker needs to try and pretend to be a male, by addressing questions put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is reasonably persuading. A considerable portion of a jury, who need to not be expert about makers, need to be taken in by the pretence. [37]
AI-complete problems

A problem is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is thought that in order to fix it, one would require to implement AGI, because the solution is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]
There are many issues that have been conjectured to need general intelligence to resolve along with human beings. Examples consist of computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unforeseen situations while solving any real-world issue. [48] Even a particular task like translation needs a machine to read and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), comprehend the context (understanding), prazskypantheon.cz and faithfully recreate the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these issues require to be solved concurrently in order to reach human-level device performance.

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

Classical AI

Modern AI research study 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 simply a few decades. [51] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon composed in 1965: "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do." [52]
Their forecasts were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI scientists thought they might develop by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was an expert [53] on the project of making HAL 9000 as practical as possible according to the consensus predictions of the time. He stated in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of developing 'expert system' will substantially be solved". [54]
Several classical AI tasks, such as Doug Lenat's Cyc job (that started in 1984), and Allen Newell's Soar task, were directed at AGI.

However, in the early 1970s, it ended up being apparent that researchers had grossly ignored the problem of the project. Funding companies ended up being doubtful of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce beneficial "applied AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project revived interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that included AGI objectives like "continue a casual discussion". [58] In reaction to this and the success of professional systems, both industry and government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, self-confidence in AI stunningly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the objectives of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never satisfied. [60] For the second time in twenty years, AI researchers who predicted the imminent achievement of AGI had been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a credibility for making vain guarantees. They ended up being hesitant to make predictions at all [d] and prevented mention of "human level" artificial intelligence for worry of being labeled "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]
Narrow AI research study

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI attained business success and academic respectability by focusing on particular sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable outcomes and business applications, such as speech recognition and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now utilized extensively throughout the innovation industry, and research in this vein is heavily funded in both academic community and market. As of 2018 [update], development in this field was thought about an emerging pattern, and a mature phase was anticipated to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]
At the turn of the century, lots of traditional AI researchers [65] hoped that strong AI might be established by combining programs that resolve different sub-problems. Hans Moravec composed in 1988:

I am positive that this bottom-up route to artificial intelligence will one day fulfill the standard top-down path over half method, ready to supply the real-world proficiency and the commonsense knowledge that has been so frustratingly evasive in reasoning programs. Fully intelligent machines will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven joining the two efforts. [65]
However, even at the time, this was contested. For example, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the sign grounding hypothesis by stating:

The expectation has frequently been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow fulfill "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches someplace in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is actually only one practical path from sense to signs: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software level of a computer will never ever be reached by this route (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we should even try to reach such a level, considering that it appears arriving would simply amount to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic significances (thereby simply lowering ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]
Modern artificial general intelligence research

The term "artificial general intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation of the ramifications of completely automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI representative increases "the capability to please goals in a broad range of environments". [68] This type of AGI, defined by the ability to maximise a mathematical meaning of intelligence rather than show human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal expert system. [70]
The term AGI was re-introduced and promoted by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research activity in 2006 was explained by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and preliminary outcomes". The first summer season school in AGI was organized in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The very 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, organized by Lex Fridman and including a variety of guest lecturers.

As of 2023 [upgrade], a small number of computer system researchers are active in AGI research study, and lots of contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, significantly more researchers have an interest in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the idea of allowing AI to constantly find out and innovate like human beings do.

Feasibility

As of 2023, the advancement and potential accomplishment of AGI remains a topic of extreme dispute within the AI community. While traditional consensus held that AGI was a remote goal, recent improvements have led some researchers and industry figures to claim that early forms of AGI may already 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 true. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century since it would need "unforeseeable and fundamentally unpredictable breakthroughs" 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 expert system is as wide as the gulf between existing area flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]
An additional difficulty is the absence of clarity in defining what intelligence entails. Does it need consciousness? Must it display the ability to set objectives along with pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are facilities such as preparation, thinking, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence need clearly duplicating the brain and its specific faculties? Does it require emotions? [81]
Most AI scientists think strong AI can be achieved in the future, but some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of achieving strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who believe human-level AI will be achieved, however that today level of development is such that a date can not accurately 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 quote among professionals for when they would be 50% positive AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the professionals, 16.5% answered with "never" when asked the same concern but with a 90% self-confidence instead. [85] [86] Further present 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 discovered that "over [a] 60-year timespan there is a strong bias towards predicting the arrival of human-level AI as between 15 and 25 years from the time the forecast was made". They evaluated 95 predictions made between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will come about. [87]
In 2023, Microsoft scientists published a detailed evaluation of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, we think that it could reasonably be considered as an early (yet still insufficient) version of a synthetic general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another research study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outshines 99% of human beings on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]
Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig composed in 2023 that a substantial level of basic intelligence has actually already been attained with frontier designs. They wrote that unwillingness to this view originates from 4 primary factors: a "healthy skepticism about metrics for AGI", an "ideological commitment to alternative AI theories or strategies", a "dedication to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "concern about the financial ramifications of AGI". [91]
2023 also marked the emergence of large multimodal designs (large language designs capable of processing or generating numerous modalities such as text, audio, and images). [92]
In 2024, OpenAI launched o1-preview, the very first of a series of designs that "spend more time thinking before they react". According to Mira Murati, this ability to believe before responding represents a brand-new, extra paradigm. It enhances model outputs by spending more computing power when creating the response, whereas the design scaling paradigm improves outputs by increasing the model size, training data and training calculate power. [93] [94]
An OpenAI worker, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the business had attained AGI, specifying, "In my opinion, we have currently achieved AGI and it's a lot more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "much better than any human at any task", it is "much better than most human beings at many tasks." He likewise addressed criticisms that large language designs (LLMs) merely follow predefined patterns, comparing their learning procedure to the scientific approach of observing, hypothesizing, and verifying. These statements have triggered argument, as they depend on a broad and unconventional meaning of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models demonstrate exceptional adaptability, they might not fully satisfy this standard. Notably, Kazemi's remarks came soon after OpenAI got rid of "AGI" from the regards to its collaboration with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the business's tactical intentions. [95]
Timescales

Progress in synthetic intelligence has traditionally gone through durations of quick development separated by periods when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were basic advances in hardware, software or both to create area for more development. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the computer hardware available in the twentieth century was not enough to execute deep knowing, which needs great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]
In the intro to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel says that price quotes of the time required before a genuinely flexible AGI is built vary from 10 years to over a century. Since 2007 [update], the consensus in the AGI research community seemed to be that the timeline discussed by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have provided a vast array of viewpoints on whether progress will be this quick. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions discovered a predisposition towards forecasting that the beginning of AGI would happen within 16-26 years for modern-day and historical predictions alike. That paper has been criticized for how it classified opinions as expert or non-expert. [104]
In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton established a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competitors with a top-5 test error rate of 15.3%, considerably better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the traditional technique utilized a weighted sum of scores from various pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was regarded as 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 openly readily available and freely available weak AI such as Google AI, Apple's Siri, and others. At the optimum, these AIs reached an IQ value of about 47, which corresponds approximately to a six-year-old child in very first grade. A grownup pertains to about 100 usually. Similar tests were performed in 2014, with the IQ score reaching an optimum value of 27. [106] [107]
In 2020, OpenAI developed GPT-3, a language model capable of performing numerous diverse jobs without particular 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 same year, Jason Rohrer used his GPT-3 account to develop a chatbot, and offered a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI asked for changes to the chatbot to comply with their safety standards; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]
In 2022, DeepMind established Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of performing more than 600 different jobs. [110]
In 2023, Microsoft Research published a study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it exhibited more general intelligence than previous AI models and showed human-level performance in tasks spanning several domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research sparked a dispute on whether GPT-4 could be considered an early, insufficient version of artificial general intelligence, stressing the need for more exploration and evaluation of such systems. [111]
In 2023, the AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton specified that: [112]
The idea that this stuff might really get smarter than people - a couple of people believed that, [...] But most people thought it was way off. And I believed it was method off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years or perhaps longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis likewise said that "The progress in the last few years has been pretty incredible", and that he sees no reason why it would slow down, expecting AGI within a years or even a couple of years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, specified his expectation that within 5 years, AI would can passing any test at least as well as humans. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI staff member, approximated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably possible". [115]
Whole brain emulation

While the advancement of transformer models like in ChatGPT is thought about the most appealing course to AGI, [116] [117] whole brain emulation can work as an alternative technique. With entire brain simulation, a brain design is developed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and then copying and mimicing it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation model should be sufficiently faithful to the initial, so that it behaves in almost the same way as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a type of brain simulation that is gone over in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study functions. It has actually been gone over in synthetic intelligence research study [103] as an approach to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that could provide the needed in-depth understanding are improving rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] predicts that a map of enough quality will become available on a similar timescale to the computing power required to emulate it.

Early estimates

For low-level brain simulation, a really effective cluster of computers or GPUs would be required, given the huge quantity of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) neurons has on typical 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other neurons. The brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number decreases with age, supporting by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] An estimate of the brain's processing power, based upon a simple switch design for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]
In 1997, Kurzweil looked at different price quotes for the hardware needed to equate to the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 computations per second (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "calculation" was equivalent to one "floating-point operation" - a measure used to rate existing supercomputers - then 1016 "calculations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, accomplished in 2011, while 1018 was achieved in 2022.) He utilized this figure to anticipate the necessary hardware would be readily available sometime in between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential development in computer power at the time of composing continued.

Current research

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded effort active from 2013 to 2023, has actually established an especially detailed and openly 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 artificial nerve cell model presumed by Kurzweil and utilized in numerous existing artificial neural network implementations is simple compared with biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely need to capture the detailed cellular behaviour of biological neurons, presently comprehended only in broad summary. The overhead introduced by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (specifically on a molecular scale) would require computational powers numerous orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's quote. In addition, the price quotes do not represent glial cells, which are known to play a function in cognitive procedures. [125]
An essential criticism of the simulated brain method derives from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is an important element of human intelligence and is necessary to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is appropriate, any totally practical brain design will require to incorporate more than just the nerve cells (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual embodiment (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an option, however it is unidentified whether this would suffice.

Philosophical viewpoint

"Strong AI" as specified in approach

In 1980, theorist John Searle coined the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese room argument. [128] He proposed a distinction 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 artificial intelligence system can (only) act like it believes and has a mind and awareness.
The first one he called "strong" because it makes a more powerful declaration: it assumes something special has actually occurred to the maker that exceeds those capabilities that we can check. The behaviour of a "weak AI" machine would be precisely similar to a "strong AI" maker, however the latter would likewise have subjective mindful experience. This use is likewise typical 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 indicate "human level synthetic general intelligence". [102] This is not the like Searle's strong AI, unless it is assumed that consciousness is needed for human-level AGI. Academic philosophers such as Searle do not think that holds true, and to most expert system scientists the question is out-of-scope. [130]
Mainstream AI is most interested in how a program behaves. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they do not care if you call it genuine or a simulation." [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no requirement to understand if it really has mind - undoubtedly, there would be no way to inform. For AI research study, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is comparable to the statement "artificial general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI scientists take the weak AI hypothesis for approved, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for scholastic AI research study, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are two various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have various significances, and some aspects play considerable roles in science fiction and the principles of expert system:

Sentience (or "incredible consciousness"): The ability to "feel" understandings or emotions subjectively, as opposed to the ability to reason about understandings. Some thinkers, such as David Chalmers, use the term "awareness" to refer specifically to phenomenal consciousness, which is roughly comparable to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience occurs is referred to as the tough problem of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel explained in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be conscious. If we are not mindful, then it does not feel like anything. Nagel utilizes the example of a bat: we can smartly ask "what does it seem like to be a bat?" However, we are unlikely to ask "what does it seem like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat seems conscious (i.e., has consciousness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the company's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had attained sentience, though this claim was extensively challenged by other experts. [135]
Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a separate person, especially to be consciously knowledgeable about one's own ideas. This is opposed to merely being the "subject of one's thought"-an os or debugger has the ability to be "mindful of itself" (that is, to represent itself in the same way it represents whatever else)-however this is not what individuals typically indicate when they use the term "self-awareness". [g]
These traits have a moral dimension. AI sentience would generate issues of welfare and legal security, likewise to animals. [136] Other aspects of awareness related to cognitive abilities are likewise appropriate to the concept of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to incorporate innovative AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emergent problem. [138]
Benefits

AGI might have a wide array of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI might help reduce various problems in the world such as hunger, hardship and health problems. [139]
AGI might improve performance and performance in the majority of jobs. For example, in public health, AGI could speed up medical research, significantly versus cancer. [140] It could take care of the senior, [141] and equalize access to rapid, premium medical diagnostics. It might offer enjoyable, low-cost and tailored education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist might end up being outdated if the wealth produced is appropriately rearranged. [141] [142] This likewise raises the concern of the place of human beings in a significantly automated society.

AGI might also assist to make reasonable decisions, and to anticipate and avoid disasters. It might likewise help to profit of potentially devastating technologies such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while preventing the associated risks. [143] If an AGI's primary objective is to avoid existential disasters such as human termination (which might be challenging if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being real), [144] it might take procedures to dramatically reduce the threats [143] while reducing the impact of these procedures on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential risks

AGI may represent several types of existential risk, which are threats that threaten "the premature termination of Earth-originating smart life or the irreversible and extreme damage of its potential for preferable future advancement". [145] The threat of human extinction from AGI has been the topic of lots of disputes, however there is also the possibility that the advancement of AGI would result in a permanently problematic future. Notably, it might be used to spread out and preserve the set of worths of whoever develops it. If humanity still has moral blind areas similar to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, preventing moral progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI might help with mass monitoring and brainwashing, which could be utilized to develop a stable repressive worldwide totalitarian routine. [147] [148] There is likewise a threat for the machines themselves. If devices that are sentient or otherwise deserving of ethical consideration are mass developed in the future, taking part in a civilizational path that indefinitely neglects their well-being and interests could be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI might enhance humanity's future and aid decrease other existential risks, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for proceeding with due caution", not for "deserting AI". [147]
Risk of loss of control and human termination

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

So, facing possible futures of enormous advantages and dangers, the experts are undoubtedly doing whatever possible to guarantee the best result, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll arrive 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 taking place with AI. [153]
The prospective fate of humankind has actually often been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The comparison states that greater intelligence allowed humanity to dominate gorillas, which are now susceptible in manner ins which they could not have expected. As an outcome, the gorilla has actually ended up being an endangered types, not out of malice, however simply as a collateral damage from human activities. [154]
The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to control humankind and that we need to be mindful not to anthropomorphize them and interpret their intents as we would for human beings. He said that people won't be "wise enough to develop super-intelligent devices, yet ridiculously foolish to the point of providing it moronic objectives with no safeguards". [155] On the other side, the principle of instrumental convergence recommends that almost whatever their goals, smart agents will have factors to attempt to endure and acquire more power as intermediary steps to attaining these goals. And that this does not need having feelings. [156]
Many scholars who are concerned about existential risk advocate for more research into fixing the "control issue" to address the concern: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers implement to maximise the possibility that their recursively-improving AI would continue to act in a friendly, instead of harmful, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is complicated by the AI arms race (which could lead to a race to the bottom of security precautions in order to release items before rivals), [159] and using AI in weapon systems. [160]
The thesis that AI can posture existential risk also has critics. Skeptics normally state that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI sidetrack from other issues related to present AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for many individuals outside of the innovation market, existing chatbots and LLMs are already viewed as though they were AGI, resulting in additional misconception and worry. [162]
Skeptics sometimes charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an illogical belief in the possibility of superintelligence changing an unreasonable belief in a supreme God. [163] Some scientists believe that the communication campaigns on AI existential threat by specific AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) may be an at effort at regulatory capture and to pump up interest in their products. [164] [165]
In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, along with other market leaders and researchers, issued a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the danger of termination from AI need to be an international priority alongside other societal-scale dangers such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]
Mass joblessness

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

According to Stephen Hawking, the outcome of automation on the lifestyle 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 many people can end up badly bad if the machine-owners effectively lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be towards the second choice, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality

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

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities similar to those of the animal or human brain AI effect AI security - Research area on making AI safe and beneficial AI alignment - AI conformance to the intended objective A.I. Rising - 2018 film directed by Lazar Bodroža Expert system Automated maker learning - Process of automating the application of artificial intelligence BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research study effort revealed by the Obama administration China Brain Project Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre General game playing - Ability of expert system to play different games Generative artificial intelligence - AI system capable of producing material in reaction to triggers Human Brain Project - Scientific research study project Intelligence amplification - Use of details technology to enhance human intelligence (IA). Machine ethics - Moral behaviours of manufactured devices. Moravec's paradox. Multi-task knowing - Solving numerous device finding out jobs at the same time. Neural scaling law - Statistical law in maker learning. Outline of synthetic intelligence - Overview of and topical guide to synthetic intelligence. Transhumanism - Philosophical motion. Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or kind of expert system. Transfer knowing - Machine learning strategy. Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors. Hardware for expert system - Hardware specifically designed and enhanced for synthetic intelligence. Weak artificial intelligence - Form of expert system.
Notes

^ a b See below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the academic meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the short article Chinese room. ^ AI founder John McCarthy writes: "we can not yet identify in basic what kinds of computational treatments we desire to call intelligent. " [26] (For a conversation of some meanings of intelligence utilized by expert system researchers, see viewpoint of artificial intelligence.). ^ The Lighthill report specifically slammed AI's "grand objectives" and led the taking apart of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became determined to money just "mission-oriented direct research, instead of fundamental undirected research study". [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy writes "it would be an excellent relief to the remainder of the workers in AI if the inventors of new basic formalisms would express their hopes in a more secured form than has in some cases been the case." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is utilized. 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 defined in a standard AI book: "The assertion that makers might potentially act intelligently (or, perhaps much better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by theorists, and the assertion that devices that do so are in fact believing (as opposed to replicating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is synthetic narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is created to perform a single task. ^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our objective is to make sure that synthetic general intelligence benefits all of mankind. ^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's new objective is developing synthetic general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to develop AI that is better than human-level at all of the human senses. ^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A 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 identified as being active in 2020. ^ a b c "AI timelines: What do professionals in expert system expect for the future?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 6 April 2023. ^ Metz, Cade (15 May 2023). "Some Researchers Say A.I. Is Already Here, Stirring Debate in Tech Circles". The New York City Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023. ^ "AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton gives up Google and alerts of threat ahead". The New York Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is difficult to see how you can prevent the bad stars from using it for bad things. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early explores GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 shows stimulates of AGI. ^ Butler, Octavia E. (1993 ). Parable of the Sower. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4466-7550-5. All that you touch you change. All that you 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 Expert System". The New York Times. The genuine hazard is not AI itself but the method we release it. ^ "Impressed by synthetic intelligence? Experts state AGI is coming next, and it has 'existential' threats". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might position existential risks to mankind. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The very first superintelligence will be the last development that humankind needs to make. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI need to be a worldwide top priority. ^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI professionals alert of danger of extinction from AI. ^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York City Times. We are far from creating machines that can outthink us in basic methods. ^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not provide an existential threat". Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential hazard. ^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260. ^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the original on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil explains strong AI as "device intelligence with the full range of human intelligence.". ^ "The Age of Artificial Intelligence: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the initial on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014. ^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they 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. ^ "Expert system is transforming our world - it is on all of us to make certain that it works out". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023. ^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to achieving AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat. ^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007. ^ This list of intelligent characteristics is based upon the topics covered by significant AI books, including: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998. ^ Johnson 1987. ^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press. ^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body shapes the way we think: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: The principle of proficiency". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reconsidered: The idea of competence". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the initial on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014. ^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the original on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019. ^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What occurs when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024. ^ a b Turing 1950. ^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1. ^ "Eugene Goostman is a real 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 designs like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing everything from the bar exam to AP Biology. Here's a list of challenging examinations both AI variations have actually passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Expert System Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Take Advantage Of It". Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is unreliable. The Winograd Schema is outdated. Coffee is the response". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder recommended checking an AI chatbot's ability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to determine human-like intelligence". Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). "Mustafa Suleyman: My new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Artificial Intelligence" (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 Defining Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Artificial Intelligence, 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 initial on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022. ^ Simon 1965, p. 96 estimated in Crevier 1993, p. 109. ^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008. ^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), 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 also 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 City Times. Archived from the original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer scientists and software application engineers prevented the term artificial intelligence for fear of being considered 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 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 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 popularized by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel' ^ Wang & Goertzel 2007 ^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summer school: June 22 - July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009". Archived from the initial on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the initial 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 progress in device intelligence, synthetic general 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 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 understood". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1 ): 1-9. doi:10.1057/ s41599-020-0494-4. hdl:11250/ 2726984. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 219710554. ^ McCarthy 2007b. ^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (23 November 2015). "The Doomsday Invention: Will artificial intelligence bring us utopia or damage?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016. ^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future progress in expert system: A survey of expert opinion. In Fundamental problems of artificial intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham. ^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, modified by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia ^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023. ^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023. ^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The creativity of machines: AI takes the Torrance Test". Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185. ^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema. ^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). "Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024". Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024. ^ "Introducing OpenAI o1-preview". OpenAI. 12 September 2024. ^ Knight, Will. "OpenAI Announces a New AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024. ^ "OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved". Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024. ^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024. ^ "Next-Gen AI: OpenAI and Meta's Leap Towards Reasoning Machines". Unite.ai. 19 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024. ^ James, Alex P. (2022 ). "The Why, What, and How of Artificial General Intelligence Chip Development". IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. 14 (2 ): 333-347. arXiv:2012.06338. doi:10.1109/ TCDS.2021.3069871. ISSN 2379-8920. S2CID 228376556. Archived from the initial on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022. ^ Pei, Jing; Deng, Lei; Song, Sen; Zhao, Mingguo; Zhang, Youhui; Wu, Shuang; Wang, Guanrui; Zou, Zhe; Wu, Zhenzhi; He, Wei; Chen, Feng; Deng, Ning; Wu, Si; Wang, Yu; Wu, Yujie (2019 ). "Towards artificial general intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture". Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the 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 role of GPU computing and deep knowing in drug discovery". Nature Machine Intelligence. 4 (3 ): 211-221. doi:10.1038/ s42256-022-00463-x. ISSN 2522-5839. S2CID 252081559. ^ Goertzel & Pennachin 2006. ^ a b c (Kurzweil 2005, p. 260). ^ a b c Goertzel 2007. ^ Grace, Katja (2016 ). "Error in Armstrong and Sotala 2012". AI Impacts (blog site). Archived from the initial on 4 December 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2020. ^ a b Butz, Martin V. (1 March 2021). "Towards Strong AI". KI - Künstliche Intelligenz. 35 (1 ): 91-101. doi:10.1007/ s13218-021-00705-x. ISSN 1610-1987. S2CID 256065190. ^ Liu, Feng; Shi, Yong; Liu, Ying (2017 ). "Intelligence Quotient and Intelligence Grade of Expert System". Annals of Data Science. 4 (2 ): 179-191. arXiv:1709.10242. doi:10.1007/ s40745-017-0109-0. S2CID 37900130. ^ Brien, Jörn (5 October 2017). "Google-KI doppelt so schlau wie Siri" [Google AI is twice as clever as Siri - however a six-year-old beats both] (in German). Archived from the initial on 3 January 2019. Retrieved 2 January 2019. ^ Grossman, Gary (3 September 2020). "We're getting in the AI golden 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 just recently revealed GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. ... So is GPT-3 the very first example of an AGI system? This is debatable, however the consensus is that it is not AGI. ... If absolutely nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a happy medium between narrow and general AI. ^ Quach, Katyanna. "A designer built an AI chatbot using 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 brand-new AI can perform over 600 tasks, from playing games to controlling robotics", TechCrunch, archived from the initial on 16 June 2022, retrieved 12 June 2022. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (22 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL] ^ Metz, Cade (1 May 2023). "' The Godfather of A.I.' Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ Bove, Tristan. "A.I. might match human intelligence in 'simply a couple of years,' states CEO of Google's main A.I. research lab". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024. ^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO states AI might pass human tests in 5 years". Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead". ^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). "Why everybody appears to disagree on how to define Artificial General Intelligence". Fast Company. ^ Nosta, John (5 January 2024). "The Accelerating Path to Artificial General Intelligence". Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 March 2024. ^ Hickey, Alex. "Whole Brain Emulation: A Huge Step for Neuroscience". Tech Brew. Retrieved 8 November 2023. ^ Sandberg & Boström 2008. ^ Drachman 2005. ^ a b Russell & Norvig 2003. ^ Moravec 1988, p. 61. ^ Moravec 1998. ^ Holmgaard Mersh, Amalie (15 September 2023). "Decade-long European research study job maps the human brain". euractiv. ^ Swaminathan, Nikhil (January-February 2011). "Glia-the other brain cells". Discover. Archived from the initial on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014. ^ de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser 2008. A large range of views in current research study, all of which need grounding to some degree ^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How uploading our minds to a computer might end up being possible". The Conversation. Retrieved 8 November 2023. ^ Searle 1980 ^ For example: Russell & Norvig 2003, Oxford University Press Dictionary of Psychology Archived 3 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine (quoted in" Encyclopedia.com"),. MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (priced estimate 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 Large Language Model Be Conscious?". Boston Review. ^ Seth, Anil. "Consciousness". New Scientist. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Nagel 1974. ^ "The Google engineer who thinks the business's AI has come to life". The Washington Post. 11 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Nosta, John (18 December 2023). "Should 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 cost outweigh advantages?". 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "How we can Gain from Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) - Unite.AI". www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. "What Will Our Society Look Like When Artificial Intelligence Is Everywhere?". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b Stevenson, Matt (8 October 2015). "Answers to Stephen Hawking's AMA are Here!". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ a b Bostrom, Nick (2017 ). " § Preferred order of arrival". Superintelligence: courses, risks, strategies (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 development is making it likelier than ever that people will damage ourselves". Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). "Climate alter an 'existential security risk' to Australia, Senate inquiry says". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023. ^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6. ^ a b Ord, Toby (2020 ). "Chapter 5: Future Risks, Unaligned Expert System". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9. ^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious". Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). "Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ a b "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the ramifications of expert system - however are we taking AI seriously enough?'". The Independent (UK). Archived from the original on 25 September 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2014. ^ Herger, Mario. "The Gorilla Problem - Enterprise Garage". Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "The fascinating Facebook dispute between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI". The remarkable Facebook argument in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the threats 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 danger: 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 alerts". Financial Times. Archived from the initial on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). "Experts disagree over risk posed but artificial 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 stoking fears over AI, warn researchers". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain creator states huge tech is lying about AI extinction threat". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the initial on 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Eloundou, Tyna; Manning, Sam; Mishkin, Pamela; Rock, Daniel (17 March 2023). "GPTs are GPTs: An early take a look at the labor market effect capacity of big language models". 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 due to the fact that 'in the future, physical work will be a choice'". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Sources

UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the initial on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021. Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press. Clocksin, William (August 2003), "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 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: 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 initial (PDF) on 20 March 2013. Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), "Human-level artificial general intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a response to Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott's review of Kurzweil", Expert system, vol. 171, no. 18, Special Review Issue, pp. 1161-1173, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.011, archived from the original on 7 January 2016, recovered 1 April 2009. Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), "Nanotechnology and International Security", Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the initial on 29 May 2011, retrieved 7 May 2011. Howe, J. (November 1994), Expert System at Edinburgh University: a Point of view, archived from the original 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 ), "Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey", Expert System: a paper symposium, Science Research Council. Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Expert System: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving (5th ed.), The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., p. 720, ISBN 978-0-8053-4780-7. McCarthy, John (2007b). What is Artificial Intelligence?. Stanford University. The supreme effort is to make computer system programs that can resolve issues and attain objectives worldwide in addition to people. 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 original 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 Science as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search". Communications of the ACM. 19 (3 ): 113-126. doi:10.1145/ 360018.360022. Nilsson, Nils (1998 ), Expert System: A New Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, ISBN 978-1-5586-0467-4 NRC (1999 ), "Developments in Artificial Intelligence", Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research, National Academy Press, archived from the initial on 12 January 2008, obtained 29 September 2007 Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Rational Approach, New York: Oxford University Press, archived from the original on 25 July 2009, obtained 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 original 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 original on 17 March 2019, obtained 3 September 2020 Simon, H. A. (1965 ), The Shape of Automation for Men and Management, New York City: Harper & Row Turing, Alan (October 1950). "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". Mind. 59 (236 ): 433-460. doi:10.1093/ mind/LIX.236.433. ISSN 1460-2113. JSTOR 2251299. S2CID 14636783.
de Vega, Manuel; Glenberg, Arthur; Graesser, Arthur, eds. (2008 ), Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on significance and cognition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-1992-1727-4 Wang, Pei; Goertzel, Ben (2007 ). "Introduction: Aspects of Artificial General Intelligence". Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms: Proceedings of the AGI Workshop 2006. IOS Press. pp. 1-16. ISBN 978-1-5860-3758-1. Archived from the original on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 - 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 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], Artificial Intelligence Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the initial on 23 July 2014, retrieved 31 August 2012 Cukier, Kenneth, "Ready for Robots? How to Think about the Future of AI", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 4 (July/August 2019), pp. 192-98. George Dyson, historian of computing, writes (in what might be called "Dyson's Law") that "Any system basic enough to be reasonable will not be complicated enough to behave smartly, while any system made complex enough to act intelligently will be too made complex to understand." (p. 197.) Computer researcher Alex Pentland composes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead easy foolish. They work, but they work by strength." (p. 198.). Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the initial on 26 July 2010, retrieved 25 July 2010. Gleick, James, "The Fate of Free Choice" (review of Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Choice, Princeton University Press, 2023, 333 pp.), The New York City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. "Agency is what differentiates us from devices. For biological animals, reason and purpose come from acting in the world and experiencing the repercussions. Expert systems - disembodied, strangers to blood, sweat, and tears - have no occasion for that." (p. 30.). Halal, William E. "TechCast Article Series: The Automation of Thought" (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on 6 June 2013. - Halpern, Sue, "The Coming Tech Autocracy" (review of Verity Harding, AI Needs You: How We Can Change AI's Future and Save Our Own, Princeton University Press, 274 pp.; Gary Marcus, Taming Silicon Valley: How We Can Ensure That AI Works for Us, MIT Press, 235 pp.; Daniela Rus and Gregory Mone, The Mind's Mirror: Risk and Reward in the Age of AI, Norton, 280 pp.; Madhumita Murgia, Code Dependent: Residing In the Shadow of AI, Henry Holt, 311 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. "' We can't reasonably expect that those who want to get rich from AI are going to have the interests of the rest of us close at heart,' ... composes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't depend on governments driven by campaign financing contributions [from tech companies] to push back.' ... Marcus details the demands that residents ought to make of their federal governments and the tech business. They include openness on how AI systems work; payment for individuals if their data [are] used to train LLMs (large language model) s and the right to grant this usage; and the capability to hold tech companies accountable for the damages they bring on by eliminating Section 230, enforcing money penalites, and passing stricter item liability laws ... Marcus likewise recommends ... that a brand-new, AI-specific federal agency, similar to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, may provide the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law teacher Chinmayi Sharma ... suggests ... develop [ing] an expert licensing routine for engineers that would operate in a similar method to medical licenses, malpractice matches, and the Hippocratic oath in medicine. 'What if, like doctors,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers likewise vowed to do no damage?'" (p. 46.). Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), "Abstraction and reformulation in artificial intelligence", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 358, no. 1435, pp. 1197-1204, doi:10.1098/ rstb.2003.1317, PMC 1693218, PMID 12903653. Hughes-Castleberry, Kenna, "A Murder Mystery Puzzle: The puzzle Cain's Jawbone, which has actually baffled humans for years, reveals the limitations of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder mystery competition has revealed that although NLP (natural-language processing) designs are capable of incredible tasks, their abilities are really much restricted by the amount of context they get. This [...] could trigger [problems] for scientists who want to use them to do things such as analyze ancient languages. Sometimes, there are few historic records on long-gone civilizations to work as training data for such a function." (p. 82.). Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: People now use A.I. to produce phony videos indistinguishable from genuine ones. Just how much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we suggest practical videos produced utilizing artificial intelligence that really deceive individuals, then they hardly exist. The fakes aren't deep, and the deeps aren't fake. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in general, operating in our media as counterfeited proof. Their role much better resembles that of animations, especially smutty ones." (p. 59.). - Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We need to avoid humanizing machine-learning designs used in clinical research", Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81. Lepore, Jill, "The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a device a conversation?", The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16. Marcus, Gary, "Artificial Confidence: Even the most recent, buzziest systems of synthetic general intelligence are stymmied by the same old issues", Scientific American, vol. 327, no. 4 (October 2022), pp. 42-45. McCarthy, John (October 2007), "From here to human-level AI", Artificial Intelligence, 171 (18 ): 1174-1182, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.009. McCorduck, Pamela (2004 ), Machines Who Think (2nd ed.), Natick, Massachusetts: A. K. Peters, ISBN 1-5688-1205-1. Moravec, Hans (1976 ), The Role of Raw Power in Intelligence, archived from the initial on 3 March 2016, 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: McGraw-Hill. Omohundro, Steve (2008 ), The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence, provided and distributed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California. Press, Eyal, "In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition technology lead cops to overlook contradictory evidence?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26. Roivainen, Eka, "AI's IQ: ChatGPT aced a [basic intelligence] test but revealed that intelligence can not be measured by IQ alone", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 1 (July/August 2023), p. 7. "Despite its high IQ, ChatGPT fails at jobs that require real humanlike reasoning or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT seemed unable to reason realistically and attempted to rely on its huge database of ... truths originated from online texts. " - Scharre, Paul, "Killer Apps: The Real Dangers of an AI Arms Race", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 3 (May/June 2019), pp. 135-44. "Today's AI innovations are powerful but unreliable. Rules-based systems can not handle situations their programmers did not prepare for. Learning systems are limited by the information on which they were trained. AI failures have actually already caused tragedy. Advanced autopilot features in automobiles, although they carry out well in some situations, have driven vehicles without cautioning into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked automobiles. In the wrong scenario, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an immediate. When an enemy is attempting 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 enabled by brand-new innovations but count on the timelelss human propensity to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.). Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.