Artificial basic intelligence (AGI) is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that matches or surpasses human cognitive capabilities throughout a large range of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is restricted to particular tasks. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that considerably exceeds human cognitive abilities. AGI is considered among the definitions of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a primary objective of AI research and of companies such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 study recognized 72 active AGI research study and advancement jobs across 37 nations. [4]
The timeline for attaining AGI stays a subject of continuous argument amongst scientists and professionals. As of 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or years; others maintain it may take a century or longer; a minority think it may never ever be accomplished; and another minority claims that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton has revealed concerns about the rapid progress towards AGI, suggesting it might be achieved sooner than lots of anticipate. [7]
There is dispute on the exact meaning of AGI and relating to whether modern big language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early types of AGI. [8] AGI is a common 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 mentioned that reducing the threat of human termination postured by AGI should be an international concern. [14] [15] Others find the development of AGI to be too remote to present such a threat. [16] [17]
Terminology

AGI is also understood as strong AI, [18] [19] complete AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level smart AI, or basic smart action. [21]
Some academic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience life or awareness. [a] In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) has the ability to resolve one specific problem but does not have general cognitive capabilities. [22] [19] Some scholastic sources utilize "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the exact same sense as humans. [a]
Related ideas consist of artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical type of AGI that is a lot more typically intelligent than people, [23] while the idea of transformative AI relates to AI having a large effect on society, for instance, similar to the farming or commercial transformation. [24]
A structure for classifying AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They specify 5 levels of AGI: emerging, competent, professional, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a skilled AGI is defined as an AI that surpasses 50% of skilled grownups in a vast array of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is similarly defined but with a limit of 100%. They think about large language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]
Characteristics

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

Researchers typically hold that intelligence is needed to do all of the following: [27]
factor, usage technique, solve puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability represent knowledge, including good sense understanding plan find out

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

Many interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) consider additional traits such as creativity (the ability to form unique psychological images and ideas) [28] and autonomy. [29]
Computer-based systems that display a lot of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated thinking, choice support system, robot, evolutionary calculation, intelligent representative). There is debate about whether modern-day AI systems have them to an appropriate degree.

Physical qualities

Other capabilities are considered preferable in smart systems, as they may affect intelligence or help in its expression. These consist of: [30]
- the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on), and - the capability to act (e.g. relocation and control objects, change area to check out, etc).
This includes the capability to spot and react to threat. [31]
Although the ability 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) can be preferable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly required for an entity to certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language designs (LLMs) may currently be or become AGI. Even from a less positive point of view on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like form; being a silicon-based computational system suffices, offered it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This analysis aligns with the understanding that AGI has never been proscribed a particular physical embodiment and therefore does not require a capability for locomotion or standard "eyes and ears". [32]
Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests indicated to confirm 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 guy, by responding to concerns put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is fairly persuading. A significant part of a jury, who need to not be professional about machines, need to be taken in by the pretence. [37]
AI-complete issues

A problem is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is believed that in order to fix it, one would require to execute AGI, due to the fact that the service is beyond the abilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]
There are numerous problems that have actually been conjectured to need general intelligence to fix along with people. Examples consist of computer system vision, natural language understanding, and handling unanticipated circumstances while solving any real-world problem. [48] Even a particular task like translation requires a device to check out and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), understand the context (understanding), and faithfully recreate the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these problems need to be fixed all at once in order to reach human-level device efficiency.

However, much of these jobs can now be performed by contemporary large language models. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has reached human-level efficiency on lots of standards for reading understanding and visual thinking. [49]
History

Classical AI

Modern AI research study began in the mid-1950s. [50] The first generation of AI researchers were convinced that artificial basic intelligence was possible and that it would exist in simply a couple of decades. [51] AI leader Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man 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 could develop by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was a consultant [53] on the task of making HAL 9000 as realistic as possible according to the agreement forecasts of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of creating 'artificial intelligence' will significantly be resolved". [54]
Several classical AI jobs, such as Doug Lenat's Cyc task (that started in 1984), and Allen Newell's Soar project, were directed at AGI.

However, in the early 1970s, it ended up being obvious that researchers had actually grossly undervalued the difficulty of the project. Funding agencies became skeptical of AGI and nerdgaming.science put researchers under increasing pressure to produce useful "used AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project revived interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that included AGI objectives like "continue a table talk". [58] In reaction to this and the success of specialist systems, both market and government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI amazingly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the objectives of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never satisfied. [60] For the 2nd time in 20 years, AI scientists who forecasted the imminent achievement of AGI had actually been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a credibility for making vain promises. They ended up being unwilling to make predictions at all [d] and fishtanklive.wiki prevented reference of "human level" expert system for worry of being labeled "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]
Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI accomplished business success and academic respectability by concentrating on particular sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable outcomes and commercial applications, such as speech acknowledgment and suggestion algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now utilized extensively throughout the innovation market, and research study in this vein is heavily moneyed in both academic community and industry. Since 2018 [upgrade], advancement in this field was thought about an emerging pattern, and a fully grown stage was expected to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]
At the turn of the century, numerous mainstream AI researchers [65] hoped that strong AI could be established by combining programs that fix various sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:

I am confident that this bottom-up path to artificial intelligence will one day satisfy the conventional top-down route over half way, all set to supply the real-world competence and the commonsense knowledge that has been so frustratingly evasive in reasoning programs. Fully intelligent devices will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven uniting the two efforts. [65]
However, even at the time, this was contested. For instance, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the sign grounding hypothesis by stating:

The expectation has actually frequently been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way satisfy "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is truly only one feasible route 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 path (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we need to even attempt to reach such a level, considering that it appears arriving would simply total up to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic significances (thus merely reducing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]
Modern artificial basic intelligence research study

The term "artificial 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 please goals in a vast array of environments". [68] This kind of AGI, identified by the ability to increase a mathematical meaning of intelligence instead of exhibit human-like behaviour, [69] was likewise called universal synthetic intelligence. [70]
The term AGI was re-introduced and popularized by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research activity in 2006 was described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and preliminary outcomes". The first summertime school in AGI was arranged in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The very first university course was offered in 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT presented a course on AGI in 2018, organized by Lex Fridman and including a variety of visitor speakers.

As of 2023 [update], a little number of computer scientists are active in AGI research study, and numerous contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, significantly more scientists are interested in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the concept of allowing AI to continuously learn and innovate like people do.

Feasibility

Since 2023, the advancement and prospective achievement of AGI stays a topic of extreme debate within the AI community. While traditional consensus held that AGI was a remote objective, current developments have actually led some researchers and industry figures to claim that early kinds of AGI might currently exist. [78] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do". This forecast failed to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen believed that such intelligence is unlikely in the 21st century because it would require "unforeseeable and essentially unpredictable breakthroughs" and a "scientifically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf between contemporary computing and human-level artificial intelligence is as large as the gulf between present area flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]
A more difficulty is the absence of clearness in defining what intelligence entails. Does it need awareness? Must it display the ability to set goals in addition to pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are facilities such as planning, thinking, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence need clearly reproducing the brain and its specific professors? Does it require feelings? [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 think human-level AI will be achieved, however that today level of progress is such that a date can not precisely be anticipated. [84] AI professionals' views on the expediency of AGI wax and subside. Four surveys carried out in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the typical price quote amongst professionals for when they would be 50% confident AGI would get here was 2040 to 2050, depending on the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the professionals, 16.5% addressed with "never ever" when asked the same concern however with a 90% self-confidence instead. [85] [86] Further present AGI progress considerations can be discovered above Tests for confirming human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute found that "over [a] 60-year timespan there is a strong predisposition towards anticipating the arrival of human-level AI as between 15 and 25 years from the time the prediction was made". They examined 95 predictions made between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]
In 2023, Microsoft researchers released an in-depth evaluation of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, our company believe that it could reasonably be considered as an early (yet still insufficient) version of a synthetic basic intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another research study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 surpasses 99% of humans on the Torrance tests of imaginative thinking. [89] [90]
Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig composed in 2023 that a considerable level of general intelligence has already been accomplished with frontier designs. They wrote that hesitation to this view originates from 4 main factors: a "healthy apprehension about metrics for AGI", an "ideological commitment to alternative AI theories or methods", a "dedication to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "issue about the financial implications of AGI". [91]
2023 likewise marked the development of big multimodal models (large language designs efficient in processing or creating several modalities such as text, audio, and images). [92]
In 2024, OpenAI launched o1-preview, the first of a series of designs that "invest more time believing before they respond". According to Mira Murati, this capability to believe before reacting represents a brand-new, extra paradigm. It improves design outputs by spending more computing power when creating the response, whereas the model scaling paradigm improves outputs by increasing the model size, training information and training compute power. [93] [94]
An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, claimed in 2024 that the company had actually accomplished AGI, stating, "In my viewpoint, we have actually 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 the majority of people at a lot of tasks." He also addressed criticisms that large language designs (LLMs) merely follow predefined patterns, comparing their learning procedure to the scientific method of observing, assuming, and verifying. These declarations have triggered dispute, as they rely on a broad and unconventional meaning of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence across all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models show exceptional adaptability, they may not completely fulfill this requirement. Notably, Kazemi's comments came shortly after OpenAI eliminated "AGI" from the regards to its collaboration with Microsoft, triggering speculation about the business's tactical objectives. [95]
Timescales

Progress in artificial intelligence has actually traditionally gone through durations of rapid progress separated by periods when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were basic advances in hardware, software or both to develop area for more progress. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the computer hardware offered in the twentieth century was not adequate to carry out deep knowing, which requires great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]
In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that quotes of the time required before a really flexible AGI is developed differ from ten years to over a century. As of 2007 [upgrade], the agreement in the AGI research study neighborhood appeared to be that the timeline gone over by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. in between 2015 and 2045) was possible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have given a wide variety of viewpoints on whether development will be this fast. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such viewpoints discovered a predisposition towards forecasting that the start of AGI would take place within 16-26 years for modern and historical predictions alike. That paper has been slammed for how it classified opinions as specialist or non-expert. [104]
In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton developed a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competitors with a top-5 test error rate of 15.3%, considerably much better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the traditional method used a weighted amount of scores from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered the initial ground-breaker of the existing deep knowing wave. [105]
In 2017, scientists Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu performed intelligence tests on publicly readily available and easily available weak AI such as Google AI, Apple's Siri, and others. At the optimum, these AIs reached an IQ worth of about 47, which corresponds approximately to a six-year-old child in very first grade. A grownup concerns about 100 usually. Similar tests were brought out in 2014, with the IQ score reaching an optimum worth of 27. [106] [107]
In 2020, OpenAI developed GPT-3, a language model efficient in carrying out numerous varied jobs without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat short article, while there is agreement that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is thought about by some to be too advanced to be classified as a narrow AI system. [108]
In the very same year, Jason Rohrer utilized his GPT-3 account to establish a chatbot, and supplied a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested changes to the chatbot to comply with their security guidelines; 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, contending that it displayed more basic intelligence than previous AI designs and showed human-level efficiency in jobs covering numerous domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research sparked a dispute on whether GPT-4 might be thought about an early, insufficient variation of synthetic basic intelligence, emphasizing the need for more exploration and assessment of such systems. [111]
In 2023, the AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton specified that: [112]
The concept that this things might in fact get smarter than people - a few people believed that, [...] But most people thought it was method off. And I thought it was way off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years or perhaps longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly stated that "The progress in the last couple of years has been pretty incredible", and that he sees no reason that it would decrease, expecting AGI within a decade or perhaps a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, specified his expectation that within five years, AI would be capable of passing any test at least along with people. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI worker, approximated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably plausible". [115]
Whole brain emulation

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

Early estimates

For low-level brain simulation, an extremely powerful cluster of computers or GPUs would be needed, offered the enormous 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 the adult years. 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 on an easy switch design for nerve cell activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]
In 1997, Kurzweil looked at numerous price quotes for the hardware required to equate to the human brain and adopted a figure of 1016 computations per second (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "calculation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a step utilized to rate existing supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was achieved in 2022.) He utilized this figure to anticipate the essential hardware would be offered sometime between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid growth 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 a particularly detailed and openly accessible atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, researchers from Duke University performed a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.

Criticisms of simulation-based methods

The synthetic nerve cell design presumed by Kurzweil and utilized in lots of existing synthetic neural network implementations is basic compared to biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely need to capture the detailed cellular behaviour of biological neurons, presently understood just in broad outline. The overhead introduced 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 bigger than Kurzweil's quote. In addition, the estimates do not represent glial cells, which are understood to contribute in cognitive processes. [125]
An essential criticism of the simulated brain approach stems from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is an essential element of human intelligence and is necessary to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is correct, any totally functional brain model will require to encompass more than simply the neurons (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an alternative, however it is unknown whether this would be adequate.

Philosophical perspective

"Strong AI" as specified in approach

In 1980, theorist John Searle created the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese space argument. [128] He proposed a difference in between two hypotheses about synthetic intelligence: [f]
Strong AI hypothesis: An artificial intelligence system can have "a mind" and "consciousness". Weak AI hypothesis: An expert system system can (only) act like it believes and has a mind and consciousness.
The first one he called "strong" since it makes a stronger declaration: it assumes something unique has taken place to the maker that goes beyond those abilities that we can test. The behaviour of a "weak AI" device would be precisely identical to a "strong AI" machine, however the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This usage is likewise common in academic AI research study and textbooks. [129]
In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil use the term "strong AI" to imply "human level artificial general intelligence". [102] This is not the same as Searle's strong AI, unless it is assumed that awareness is essential for human-level AGI. Academic philosophers such as Searle do not think that is the case, and to most expert system researchers the question is out-of-scope. [130]
Mainstream AI is most thinking about how a program behaves. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they do not care if you call it real or a simulation." [130] If the program can act as if it has a mind, then there is no need to understand if it actually has mind - undoubtedly, there would be no chance to tell. For AI research study, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is equivalent to the statement "artificial general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for granted, and don't care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research study, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are two various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have various significances, and some elements play significant roles in sci-fi and the principles of artificial intelligence:

Sentience (or "extraordinary awareness"): The ability to "feel" understandings or emotions subjectively, instead of the ability to reason about perceptions. Some theorists, such as David Chalmers, utilize the term "awareness" to refer solely to remarkable consciousness, which is approximately equivalent to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience emerges is understood as the tough issue of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel described in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be mindful. If we are not mindful, then it does not seem like anything. Nagel utilizes the example of a bat: we can sensibly ask "what does it seem 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 appears to be conscious (i.e., has consciousness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer declared that the company's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had attained sentience, though this claim was extensively disputed by other specialists. [135]
Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a separate person, specifically to be consciously conscious of one's own thoughts. This is opposed to just being the "topic of one's thought"-an operating system or debugger has the ability to be "familiar with itself" (that is, to represent itself in the same way it represents whatever else)-but this is not what individuals typically imply when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]
These characteristics have a moral dimension. AI life would provide increase to concerns of welfare and legal security, similarly to animals. [136] Other aspects of consciousness related to cognitive capabilities are also relevant to the principle of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to incorporate sophisticated AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emergent concern. [138]
Benefits

AGI could have a wide range of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI could help reduce various problems on the planet such as hunger, hardship and health issues. [139]
AGI could enhance performance and performance in most tasks. For example, in public health, AGI might speed up medical research study, especially against cancer. [140] It might take care of the senior, [141] and equalize access to fast, high-quality medical diagnostics. It might provide enjoyable, cheap and personalized education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist could become obsolete if the wealth produced is effectively rearranged. [141] [142] This also raises the concern of the place of human beings in a drastically automated society.

AGI could also help to make logical choices, and to prepare for and prevent disasters. It might also help to profit of possibly disastrous technologies such as nanotechnology or environment engineering, while avoiding the associated risks. [143] If an AGI's main objective is to avoid existential catastrophes such as human termination (which could be difficult if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being true), [144] it could take measures to significantly reduce the threats [143] while decreasing the effect of these steps on our lifestyle.

Risks

Existential threats

AGI may represent several kinds of existential danger, which are risks that threaten "the early termination of Earth-originating smart life or the irreversible and drastic damage of its potential for desirable future development". [145] The threat of human termination from AGI has actually been the subject of many debates, however there is likewise the possibility that the development of AGI would cause a completely flawed future. Notably, it could be utilized to spread and protect the set of worths of whoever establishes it. If humankind still has ethical blind spots comparable to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, avoiding ethical development. [146] Furthermore, AGI could assist in mass surveillance and brainwashing, which might be utilized to create a steady repressive around the world totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is likewise a danger for the devices themselves. If makers that are sentient or otherwise deserving of moral factor to consider are mass developed in the future, engaging in a civilizational course that forever ignores their well-being and interests might be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering how much AGI could improve humankind's future and help reduce other existential risks, Toby Ord calls these existential risks "an argument for continuing with due care", not for "deserting AI". [147]
Risk of loss of control and human extinction

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

So, facing possible futures of incalculable advantages and dangers, the professionals are definitely doing everything possible to ensure the very best result, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll get here in a few years,' would we just respond, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is basically what is happening with AI. [153]
The possible fate of mankind has in some cases been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast states that greater intelligence allowed humankind to dominate gorillas, which are now susceptible in methods that they could not have actually prepared for. As a result, the gorilla has become an endangered types, not out of malice, however just as a security damage from human activities. [154]
The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to dominate humankind and that we should beware not to anthropomorphize them and analyze their intents as we would for humans. He stated that individuals will not be "clever enough to design super-intelligent makers, yet unbelievably silly to the point of giving it moronic goals with no safeguards". [155] On the other side, the idea of critical merging suggests that practically whatever their objectives, smart agents will have reasons to try to survive and get more power as intermediary steps to attaining these objectives. Which this does not require having emotions. [156]
Many scholars who are worried about existential danger supporter for more research into resolving the "control issue" to answer the concern: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers implement to increase the likelihood that their recursively-improving AI would continue to act in a friendly, instead of devastating, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is made complex by the AI arms race (which might lead to a race to the bottom of safety preventative measures in order to launch items before rivals), [159] and using AI in weapon systems. [160]
The thesis that AI can position existential threat likewise has critics. Skeptics normally say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that concerns about AGI distract from other concerns associated with present AI. [161] Former Google scams 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 fear. [162]
Skeptics in some cases charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an unreasonable belief in the possibility of superintelligence changing an irrational belief in a supreme God. [163] Some scientists believe that the interaction projects on AI existential risk by certain AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might be an at effort at regulatory capture and to pump up interest in their items. [164] [165]
In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, along with other market leaders and scientists, provided a joint statement asserting that "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI must be a worldwide top priority alongside other societal-scale threats such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]
Mass unemployment

Researchers from OpenAI approximated that "80% of the U.S. labor force might have at least 10% of their work jobs impacted by the intro of LLMs, while around 19% of workers might see a minimum of 50% of their tasks affected". [166] [167] They think about workplace employees to be the most exposed, for example mathematicians, accountants or web designers. [167] AGI might have a better autonomy, capability to make choices, to user interface with other computer tools, however likewise to manage robotized bodies.

According to Stephen Hawking, the outcome of automation on the lifestyle will depend on how the wealth will be rearranged: [142]
Everyone can enjoy a life of elegant leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or many people can wind up miserably poor if the machine-owners effectively lobby versus wealth redistribution. Up until now, the trend appears to be towards the 2nd option, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality

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

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive capabilities similar to those of the animal or human brain AI effect AI security - Research area on making AI safe and useful AI alignment - AI conformance to the desired goal A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža Artificial intelligence Automated artificial intelligence - Process of automating the application of device learning BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research effort revealed by the Obama administration China Brain Project Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research study centre General video game playing - Ability of expert system to play different games Generative synthetic intelligence - AI system capable of producing material in reaction to triggers Human Brain Project - Scientific research study project Intelligence amplification - Use of info innovation to augment human intelligence (IA). Machine principles - Moral behaviours of manufactured devices. Moravec's paradox. Multi-task learning - Solving multiple device discovering tasks at the exact same time. Neural scaling law - Statistical law in machine knowing. Outline of expert system - Overview of and topical guide to expert system. Transhumanism - Philosophical movement. Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or kind of expert system. Transfer knowing - Artificial intelligence strategy. Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors. Hardware for expert system - Hardware specially developed and enhanced 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 post Chinese space. ^ AI founder John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet define in general what type of computational procedures we want to call intelligent. " [26] (For a conversation of some definitions of intelligence used by synthetic intelligence researchers, see philosophy of synthetic 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 figured out to money just "mission-oriented direct research, instead of fundamental undirected research". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy writes "it would be a great relief to the remainder of the workers in AI if the inventors of brand-new general formalisms would express their hopes in a more secured form than has actually in some cases held true." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil introduced. ^ As defined in a standard AI book: "The assertion that devices could potentially act wisely (or, perhaps much better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that machines that do so are actually thinking (as opposed to imitating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is synthetic narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is designed to perform a single task. ^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to make sure that artificial basic intelligence benefits all of humanity. ^ 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 construct AI that is much better than human-level at all of the human senses. ^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Study of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D tasks were identified as being active in 2020. ^ a b c "AI timelines: What do professionals in expert system anticipate for the future?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 6 April 2023. ^ Metz, Cade (15 May 2023). "Some Researchers Say A.I. Is Already Here, Stirring Debate in Tech Circles". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023. ^ "AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton quits Google and alerts of danger 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 utilizing it for bad things. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 reveals 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 Artificial Intelligence". The New York City Times. The real hazard is not AI itself however the method we release it. ^ "Impressed by synthetic intelligence? Experts say AGI is coming next, and it has 'existential' risks". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might position existential threats 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 development that mankind requires to make. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. Mitigating the danger of termination from AI need to be a worldwide top priority. ^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts alert of risk 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 producing machines that can outthink us in general methods. ^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not present an existential danger". 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 explains strong AI as "device intelligence with the complete range 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 use for "human-level" intelligence in the physical sign system hypothesis. ^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the initial on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007. ^ "What is synthetic superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023. ^ "Artificial intelligence is transforming our world - it is on everyone 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 attaining AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat. ^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007. ^ This list of intelligent traits is based on the subjects covered by significant AI textbooks, consisting of: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998. ^ Johnson 1987. ^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York City: Academic Press. ^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body forms the way we believe: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The principle of skills". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The concept of proficiency". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the original on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014. ^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the original on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019. ^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What 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 differentiate GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC] ^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI models like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing whatever from the bar test to AP Biology. Here's a list of hard examinations both AI versions have actually passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Artificial Intelligence 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 evaluating an AI chatbot's ability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to determine human-like intelligence". Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). "Mustafa Suleyman: My new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Expert System" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Expert System (Second ed.). New York: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".). ^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Specifying Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Artificial Intelligence, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 22 May 2013. ^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50. ^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). "Expert System, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the original on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022. ^ Simon 1965, p. 96 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109. ^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the original on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008. ^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), quoted 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 ). "Reply to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007. ^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). "Behind Artificial Intelligence, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York Times. Archived from the initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system scientists and software engineers avoided the term artificial intelligence for fear of being seen as wild-eyed dreamers. ^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26 ^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the initial on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019. ^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20 ^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300. ^ Gubrud 1997 ^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions Based Upon Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Technology an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the initial on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022. ^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022. ^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410. ^ "Who coined the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., 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 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 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 machine intelligence: Despite progress in maker intelligence, synthetic basic intelligence is still a major obstacle". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early explores GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL] ^ "Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing "Sparks" of AGI". Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023. ^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). "The Singularity Isn't Near". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014. ^ Winfield, Alan. "Expert system will not develop into a Frankenstein's monster". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 17 September 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2014. ^ Deane, George (2022 ). "Machines That Feel and Think: The Role of Affective Feelings and Mental Action in (Artificial) General Intelligence". Artificial Life. 28 (3 ): 289-309. doi:10.1162/ artl_a_00368. ISSN 1064-5462. PMID 35881678. S2CID 251069071. ^ a b c Clocksin 2003. ^ Fjelland, Ragnar (17 June 2020). "Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1 ): 1-9. doi:10.1057/ s41599-020-0494-4. hdl:11250/ 2726984. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 219710554. ^ McCarthy 2007b. ^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (23 November 2015). "The Doomsday Invention: Will synthetic intelligence bring us paradise 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 synthetic intelligence: A study of skilled viewpoint. In Fundamental issues of synthetic 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, 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 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 Brand-new AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024. ^ "OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved". Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024. ^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024. ^ "Next-Gen AI: OpenAI and Meta's Leap Towards Reasoning Machines". Unite.ai. 19 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024. ^ James, Alex P. (2022 ). "The Why, What, and How of Artificial General Intelligence Chip Development". IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. 14 (2 ): 333-347. arXiv:2012.06338. doi:10.1109/ TCDS.2021.3069871. ISSN 2379-8920. S2CID 228376556. Archived from the initial on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022. ^ Pei, Jing; Deng, Lei; Song, Sen; Zhao, Mingguo; Zhang, Youhui; Wu, Shuang; Wang, Guanrui; Zou, Zhe; Wu, Zhenzhi; He, Wei; Chen, Feng; Deng, Ning; Wu, Si; Wang, Yu; Wu, Yujie (2019 ). "Towards synthetic general intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture". Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the initial on 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022. ^ Pandey, Mohit; Fernandez, Michael; Gentile, Francesco; Isayev, Olexandr; Tropsha, Alexander; Stern, Abraham C.; Cherkasov, Artem (March 2022). "The transformational role of GPU computing and deep 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 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 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 golden zone in between narrow and basic AI". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020. Certainly, too, there are those who claim we are currently seeing an early example of an AGI system in the just recently revealed GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. ... So is GPT-3 the first example of an AGI system? This is debatable, but the agreement is that it is not AGI. ... If absolutely nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a middle ground between narrow and basic AI. ^ Quach, Katyanna. "A developer developed 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 initial on 16 October 2021. Retrieved 16 October 2021. ^ Wiggers, Kyle (13 May 2022), " new AI can carry out over 600 jobs, from playing video 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 explores GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL] ^ Metz, Cade (1 May 2023). "' The Godfather of A.I.' Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead". The New York City Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ Bove, Tristan. "A.I. could rival human intelligence in 'just a couple of years,' says CEO of Google's main A.I. research laboratory". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024. ^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO says AI could pass human tests in 5 years". Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead". ^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). "Why everybody appears to disagree on how to 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 initial on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014. ^ de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser 2008. A vast array of views in present research study, all of which require grounding to some degree ^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How uploading our minds to a computer may end up being possible". The Conversation. Retrieved 8 November 2023. ^ Searle 1980 ^ For example: Russell & Norvig 2003, Oxford University Press Dictionary of Psychology Archived 3 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine (priced estimate in" Encyclopedia.com"),. MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (priced quote in "AITopics"),. Will Biological Computers Enable Artificially Intelligent Machines to Become Persons? Archived 13 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Anthony Tongen.


^ a b c Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 947. ^ though see Explainable artificial intelligence for interest by the field about why a program behaves 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 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 Expert System Have Moral or Legal Rights?". The Wall Street Journal. ^ "Artificial General Intelligence - Do [es] the cost surpass benefits?". 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "How we can Take advantage of Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) - Unite.AI". www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. "What Will Our Society 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, United Kingdom; New York City, 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 human beings will ruin ourselves". Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). "Climate alter an 'existential security danger' 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 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 looks at the implications of expert system - however are we taking AI seriously enough?'". The Independent (UK). Archived from the initial 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 threats of strong AI". The fascinating 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 threat: a survey". Physica Scripta. 90 (1 ): 018001. doi:10.1088/ 0031-8949/90/ 1/018001. ISSN 0031-8949. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (First ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Chow, Andrew R.; Perrigo, Billy (16 February 2023). "The AI Arms Race Is On. Start Worrying". TIME. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Tetlow, Gemma (12 January 2017). "AI arms race threats spiralling out of control, report 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 risk presented however synthetic intelligence can not be neglected". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ "Humanity, Security & AI, Oh My! (with Ian Bremmer & Shuman Ghosemajumder)". CAFE. 20 July 2023. Retrieved 15 September 2023. ^ Hamblin, James (9 May 2014). "But What Would completion of Humanity Mean for Me?". The Atlantic. Archived from the initial on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 12 December 2015. ^ Titcomb, James (30 October 2023). "Big Tech is stoking fears over AI, warn scientists". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain founder says huge tech is lying about AI extinction risk". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the initial on 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Eloundou, Tyna; Manning, Sam; Mishkin, Pamela; Rock, Daniel (17 March 2023). "GPTs are GPTs: An early look at the labor market impact capacity of large language designs". OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). "OpenAI says 80% of workers might see their jobs impacted by AI. These are the tasks most affected". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk states we need universal basic earnings because 'in the future, physical work will be a choice'". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Sources

UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the original on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021. Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press. Clocksin, William (August 2003), "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 Artificial Intelligence. New York, NY: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-02997-3. Darrach, Brad (20 November 1970), "Meet Shakey, the First Electronic Person", Life Magazine, pp. 58-68. Drachman, D. (2005 ), "Do we have brain to spare?", Neurology, 64 (12 ): 2004-2005, doi:10.1212/ 01. WNL.0000166914.38327. BB, PMID 15985565, S2CID 38482114. Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983 ), The Fifth Generation: Artificial Intelligence and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World, Michael Joseph, ISBN 978-0-7181-2401-4. Goertzel, Ben; Pennachin, Cassio, eds. (2006 ), Artificial General Intelligence (PDF), Springer, ISBN 978-3-5402-3733-4, archived from the original (PDF) on 20 March 2013. Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), "Human-level synthetic 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", Artificial Intelligence, 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), Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University: a Viewpoint, archived from the original on 17 August 2007, recovered 30 August 2007. Johnson, Mark (1987 ), The body in the mind, Chicago, ISBN 978-0-2264-0317-5. Kurzweil, Ray (2005 ), The Singularity is Near, Viking Press. Lighthill, Professor Sir James (1973 ), "Expert System: A General Survey", Expert System: a paper seminar, Science Research Council. Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), 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 problems and attain goals worldwide in addition to 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, retrieved 23 June 2006 Nagel (1974 ), "What Is it Like to Be a Bat" (PDF), Philosophical Review, 83 (4 ): 435-50, doi:10.2307/ 2183914, JSTOR 2183914, archived (PDF) from the original on 16 October 2011, retrieved 7 November 2009 Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1976 ). "Computer Technology as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search". Communications of the ACM. 19 (3 ): 113-126. doi:10.1145/ 360018.360022. Nilsson, Nils (1998 ), Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, ISBN 978-1-5586-0467-4 NRC (1999 ), "Developments in Expert System", Funding a Transformation: Government Support for Computing Research, National Academy Press, archived from the initial on 12 January 2008, retrieved 29 September 2007 Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Logical Approach, New York City: Oxford University Press, archived from the original on 25 July 2009, recovered 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, obtained 5 April 2009 Searle, John (1980 ), "Minds, Brains and Programs" (PDF), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (3 ): 417-457, doi:10.1017/ S0140525X00005756, S2CID 55303721, archived (PDF) from the 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, recovered 4 September 2013 - through ResearchGate Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Expert System Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the original on 23 July 2014, obtained 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, composes (in what might be called "Dyson's Law") that "Any system easy sufficient to be understandable will not be complicated enough to behave smartly, while any system made complex enough to behave intelligently will be too complicated to understand." (p. 197.) Computer researcher Alex Pentland writes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead basic stupid. They work, but they work by brute force." (p. 198.). Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the original on 26 July 2010, retrieved 25 July 2010. Gleick, James, "The Fate of Free Will" (evaluation of Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will, Princeton University Press, 2023, 333 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. "Agency is what differentiates us from machines. For biological creatures, reason and purpose originate from acting on the planet and experiencing the consequences. Artificial intelligences - 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 original (PDF) on 6 June 2013. - Halpern, Sue, "The Coming Tech Autocracy" (evaluation of Verity Harding, AI Needs You: How We Can Change AI's Future and Save Our Own, Princeton University Press, 274 pp.; Gary Marcus, Taming Silicon Valley: How We Can Ensure That AI Works for Us, MIT Press, 235 pp.; Daniela Rus and Gregory Mone, The Mind's Mirror: Risk and Reward in the Age of AI, Norton, 280 pp.; Madhumita Murgia, Code Dependent: Living in the Shadow of AI, Henry Holt, 311 pp.), The New York City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. "' We can't realistically anticipate that those who wish to get rich from AI are going to have the interests of the rest people close at heart,' ... composes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't count on governments driven by campaign finance contributions [from tech business] to press back.' ... Marcus details the needs that citizens should make of their federal governments and the tech companies. They consist of transparency on how AI systems work; compensation for individuals if their information [are] used to train LLMs (big language model) s and the right to consent to this use; and the capability to hold tech business liable for the harms they trigger by removing Section 230, imposing cash penalites, and passing stricter item liability laws ... Marcus also recommends ... that a brand-new, AI-specific federal company, akin to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, might supply the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law teacher Chinmayi Sharma ... recommends ... establish [ing] an expert licensing routine for engineers that would operate in a similar method to medical licenses, malpractice matches, and the Hippocratic oath in medication. 'What if, like physicians,' 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 stymied people for decades, exposes the limitations of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder secret competitors has actually exposed that although NLP (natural-language processing) models are capable of extraordinary tasks, their capabilities are very much limited by the amount of context they get. This [...] might cause [troubles] for researchers who intend to use them to do things such as evaluate ancient languages. Sometimes, there are couple of 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 fake videos indistinguishable from real ones. How much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we suggest practical videos produced using expert system that actually trick individuals, then they hardly exist. The fakes aren't deep, and the deeps aren't fake. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in basic, running in our media as counterfeited proof. Their role better looks like that of cartoons, particularly smutty ones." (p. 59.). - Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We should avoid humanizing machine-learning designs used in clinical research study", Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81. Lepore, Jill, "The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a maker a discussion?", The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16. Marcus, Gary, "Artificial Confidence: Even the newest, buzziest systems of artificial 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: McGraw-Hill. Omohundro, Steve (2008 ), The Nature of Self-Improving Expert system, presented and distributed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California. Press, Eyal, "In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition technology lead cops to disregard inconsistent proof?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26. Roivainen, Eka, "AI's IQ: ChatGPT aced a [standard intelligence] test however revealed that intelligence can not be determined by IQ alone", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 1 (July/August 2023), p. 7. "Despite its high IQ, ChatGPT stops working at tasks that need genuine humanlike reasoning or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT appeared not able to reason rationally and tried to depend on its huge database of ... realities obtained from online texts. " - Scharre, Paul, "Killer Apps: The Real Dangers of an AI Arms Race", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 3 (May/June 2019), pp. 135-44. "Today's AI innovations are effective but unreliable. Rules-based systems can not handle situations their developers did not prepare for. Learning systems are limited by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have already resulted in disaster. Advanced auto-pilot functions in vehicles, although they carry out well in some scenarios, have driven vehicles without warning into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked vehicles. In the wrong circumstance, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an instant. When an opponent is attempting to control and hack an AI system, the threats are even greater." (p. 140.). Sutherland, J. G. (1990 ), "Holographic Model of Memory, Learning, and Expression", International Journal of Neural Systems, vol. 1-3, pp. 256-267. - Vincent, James, "Horny Robot Baby Voice: James Vincent on AI chatbots", London Review of Books, vol. 46, no. 19 (10 October 2024), pp. 29-32." [AI chatbot] programs are enabled by brand-new technologies but count on the timelelss human tendency to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.). Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.