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

Creating AGI is a main goal of AI research and of companies such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 survey identified 72 active AGI research study and advancement jobs throughout 37 nations. [4]
The timeline for achieving AGI remains a subject of continuous debate among scientists and professionals. Since 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or years; others maintain it might take a century or longer; a minority believe it might never ever be attained; and another minority claims that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has actually revealed issues about the fast development towards AGI, suggesting it might be achieved quicker than many expect. [7]
There is argument on the precise meaning of AGI and regarding whether contemporary big language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early forms of AGI. [8] AGI is a typical subject in sci-fi and futures studies. [9] [10]
Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential danger. [11] [12] [13] Many professionals on AI have actually stated that reducing the danger of human termination postured by AGI must be an international priority. [14] [15] Others find the advancement of AGI to be too remote to provide such a risk. [16] [17]
Terminology

AGI is likewise called strong AI, [18] [19] complete AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level smart AI, or basic intelligent action. [21]
Some scholastic sources schedule the term "strong AI" for computer system programs that experience sentience or awareness. [a] In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to resolve one specific problem but lacks basic cognitive capabilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources utilize "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness nor have a mind in the very same sense as human beings. [a]
Related concepts include synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical type of AGI that is far more usually smart than humans, [23] while the notion of transformative AI relates to AI having a large impact on society, for instance, similar to the farming or industrial transformation. [24]
A structure for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They define 5 levels of AGI: emerging, skilled, specialist, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a skilled AGI is defined as an AI that surpasses 50% of experienced adults in a wide range of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is similarly defined however with a threshold of 100%. They think about large language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]
Characteristics

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

Researchers generally hold that intelligence is required to do all of the following: [27]
factor, usage method, fix puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability represent understanding, consisting of sound judgment understanding strategy discover

• communicate in natural language
• if needed, integrate these skills in conclusion of any offered goal

Many interdisciplinary techniques (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and decision making) think about extra qualities such as imagination (the ability to form unique mental images and ideas) [28] and autonomy. [29]
Computer-based systems that display a lot of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated reasoning, choice assistance system, robot, evolutionary calculation, intelligent representative). There is debate about whether modern AI systems possess them to a sufficient degree.

Physical characteristics

Other abilities are thought about preferable in intelligent systems, as they may affect intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: [30]
- the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and - the ability to act (e.g. move and manipulate objects, modification area to check out, and so on).
This consists of the ability to identify and react to danger. [31]
Although the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the ability to act (e.g. relocation and control things, modification place to explore, and so on) can be desirable for some smart systems, [30] these physical abilities are not strictly needed for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language models (LLMs) might already be or become AGI. Even from a less optimistic 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 is adequate, supplied it can process input (language) from the external world in location of human senses. This analysis lines up with the understanding that AGI has actually never ever been proscribed a specific physical embodiment and hence does not demand a capacity for mobility or traditional "eyes and ears". [32]
Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests suggested to confirm human-level AGI have been considered, including: [33] [34]
The idea of the test is that the machine has to try and pretend to be a male, by addressing questions put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is reasonably persuading. A substantial portion of a jury, who need to not be skilled about machines, fraternityofshadows.com need to be taken in by the pretence. [37]
AI-complete issues

An issue is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is thought that in order to solve it, one would require to carry out AGI, because the option is beyond the abilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]
There are numerous problems that have actually been conjectured to need basic intelligence to fix in addition to people. Examples include computer system vision, natural language understanding, and handling unforeseen circumstances while fixing any real-world issue. [48] Even a particular task like translation requires a device to read and write in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), comprehend the context (knowledge), and consistently replicate the author's initial intent (social intelligence). All of these issues require to be resolved at the same time in order to reach human-level machine efficiency.

However, many of these jobs can now be carried out by modern large language models. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has reached human-level performance on many benchmarks for reading understanding and visual reasoning. [49]
History

Classical AI

Modern AI research study started in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI researchers were persuaded that artificial general intelligence was possible which it would exist in simply a few decades. [51] AI leader Herbert A. Simon composed in 1965: "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do." [52]
Their predictions were the motivation for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI scientists thought they might create by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a specialist [53] on the task of making HAL 9000 as practical as possible according to the consensus forecasts of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation ... the issue of developing 'synthetic intelligence' will significantly be resolved". [54]
Several classical AI tasks, 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 ignored the trouble of the task. Funding firms became skeptical of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce useful "used AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project restored interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that included AGI objectives like "continue a table talk". [58] In response 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 goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never fulfilled. [60] For the second time in twenty years, AI researchers who anticipated the imminent accomplishment of AGI had actually been mistaken. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a track record for making vain guarantees. They ended up being hesitant to make forecasts at all [d] and avoided reference of "human level" expert system for fear of being labeled "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]
Narrow AI research study

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI attained industrial success and academic respectability by concentrating on specific sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable results and business applications, such as speech recognition and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now used extensively throughout the technology industry, and research study in this vein is greatly funded in both academic community and market. As of 2018 [upgrade], development in this field was considered an emerging pattern, and a mature stage was expected to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]
At the turn of the century, numerous mainstream AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI might be developed by integrating programs that fix various sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:

I am confident that this bottom-up path to expert system will one day meet the standard top-down route majority way, ready to provide the real-world skills and the commonsense understanding 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 disputed. For instance, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the symbol grounding hypothesis by mentioning:

The expectation has actually frequently been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow fulfill "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches someplace in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is truly only one viable route from sense to signs: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software application level of a computer system will never be reached by this route (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we need to even try to reach such a level, given that it looks as if getting there would just total up to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic significances (therefore simply reducing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]
Modern artificial basic intelligence research

The term "artificial general intelligence" was utilized as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation of the implications of fully 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 capability to please goals in a wide range of environments". [68] This type of AGI, identified by the capability to maximise a mathematical meaning of intelligence rather than display human-like behaviour, [69] was likewise called universal expert system. [70]
The term AGI was re-introduced and popularized 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 very first summer school in AGI was arranged in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The very first university course was offered in 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT provided a course on AGI in 2018, organized by Lex Fridman and including a number of guest speakers.

As of 2023 [update], a small number of computer researchers are active in AGI research, and lots of add to a series of AGI conferences. However, progressively more scientists are interested in open-ended knowing, [76] [77] which is the idea of allowing AI to continuously discover and innovate like humans do.

Feasibility

Since 2023, the advancement and potential accomplishment of AGI stays a subject of intense argument within the AI community. While conventional agreement held that AGI was a far-off objective, recent developments have led some researchers and market figures to declare that early forms of AGI might already exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do". This forecast failed to come true. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen believed that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century because it would require "unforeseeable and essentially unforeseeable developments" and a "scientifically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf in between modern computing and human-level synthetic intelligence is as wide as the gulf in between present area flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]
A further difficulty is the absence of clarity in specifying what intelligence requires. Does it need consciousness? Must it show the ability to set goals in addition to pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are facilities such as preparation, thinking, and causal understanding needed? Does intelligence need explicitly reproducing the brain and its particular professors? Does it require emotions? [81]
Most AI researchers think strong AI can be attained in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of attaining strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who believe human-level AI will be achieved, but that today level of progress is such that a date can not properly be forecasted. [84] AI professionals' views on the feasibility of AGI wax and wane. Four polls carried out in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the median price quote amongst experts for when they would be 50% confident AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending on the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the specialists, 16.5% addressed with "never" when asked the same question but with a 90% confidence rather. [85] [86] Further present AGI progress factors to consider can be found above Tests for verifying human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute discovered that "over [a] 60-year amount of time there is a strong predisposition towards forecasting the arrival of human-level AI as in between 15 and 25 years from the time the forecast was made". They analyzed 95 predictions made between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will come about. [87]
In 2023, Microsoft researchers released a detailed examination 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 incomplete) version of a synthetic general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another research study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 surpasses 99% of people on the Torrance tests of innovative thinking. [89] [90]
Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig composed in 2023 that a significant level of general intelligence has already been attained with frontier models. They composed that unwillingness to this view originates from four primary factors: a "healthy apprehension about metrics for AGI", an "ideological commitment to alternative AI theories or techniques", a "dedication to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "concern about the financial ramifications of AGI". [91]
2023 also marked the introduction of big multimodal designs (big language models capable of processing or generating multiple techniques such as text, audio, and images). [92]
In 2024, OpenAI launched o1-preview, the very first of a series of designs that "invest more time thinking before they respond". According to Mira Murati, this capability to think before responding represents a brand-new, additional paradigm. It improves design outputs by investing more computing power when producing the response, whereas the design scaling paradigm enhances outputs by increasing the model size, training information and training calculate power. [93] [94]
An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, claimed in 2024 that the company had attained AGI, mentioning, "In my opinion, we have currently accomplished AGI and it's even more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "much better than any human at any task", it is "better than many people at the majority of jobs." He also resolved criticisms that big language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing procedure to the scientific approach of observing, assuming, and verifying. These statements have triggered argument, as they rely on a broad and non-traditional meaning of AGI-traditionally understood as AI that matches human intelligence across all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models show remarkable adaptability, they might not totally satisfy this requirement. Notably, Kazemi's comments came shortly after OpenAI eliminated "AGI" from the terms of its partnership with Microsoft, triggering speculation about the company's tactical intentions. [95]
Timescales

Progress in expert system has actually traditionally gone through durations of fast progress separated by durations when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were fundamental advances in hardware, software application or both to produce area for further progress. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the hardware offered in the twentieth century was not enough to implement deep learning, which needs large numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]
In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel says that quotes of the time required before a really flexible AGI is constructed differ from ten years to over a century. As of 2007 [upgrade], the consensus in the AGI research neighborhood appeared to be that the timeline discussed by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. in between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have actually provided a vast array of viewpoints on whether development will be this rapid. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such viewpoints found a predisposition towards predicting that the beginning of AGI would occur within 16-26 years for contemporary and historic predictions alike. That paper has actually been criticized for how it classified opinions as specialist 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%, substantially much better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the traditional approach utilized a weighted amount of ratings from various pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered as the initial ground-breaker of the present deep learning wave. [105]
In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu carried out intelligence tests on openly readily available and freely accessible 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 around to a six-year-old child in first grade. A grownup pertains to about 100 typically. Similar tests were carried out in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching an optimum worth of 27. [106] [107]
In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language model efficient in performing many diverse jobs without specific training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat post, while there is agreement that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is considered 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 develop a chatbot, and supplied a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested changes to the chatbot to comply with their safety standards; Rohrer disconnected Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]
In 2022, DeepMind developed Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of performing more than 600 various jobs. [110]
In 2023, Microsoft Research published a research study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it showed more general intelligence than previous AI models and demonstrated human-level efficiency in tasks covering numerous domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study triggered an argument on whether GPT-4 could be thought about an early, incomplete variation of artificial basic intelligence, highlighting the requirement for additional expedition and assessment of such systems. [111]
In 2023, the AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton specified that: [112]
The idea that this things could in fact get smarter than individuals - a few people thought that, [...] But many 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 believe that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly stated that "The progress in the last few years has been quite extraordinary", and that he sees no reason why it would decrease, expecting AGI within a years or even a couple of years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, mentioned his expectation that within five years, AI would can passing any test a minimum of along with people. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI employee, estimated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably plausible". [115]
Whole brain emulation

While the development of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is considered the most promising course to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can serve as an alternative technique. With whole brain simulation, a brain design is built by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and after that copying and replicating it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation model should be adequately faithful to the original, so that it behaves in practically the same way as the initial brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is discussed in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study functions. It has actually been talked about in synthetic intelligence research [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that might deliver the essential comprehensive understanding are improving quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] predicts that a map of sufficient quality will appear on a similar timescale to the computing power required to imitate it.

Early approximates

For low-level brain simulation, an extremely effective cluster of computers or GPUs would be needed, given the massive amount of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells has on typical 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other neurons. The brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number decreases with age, supporting by their adult years. Estimates differ 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 quotes for the hardware required to equate to the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 calculations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "computation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a step utilized to rate present supercomputers - then 1016 "calculations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He utilized this figure to anticipate the necessary hardware would be readily available at some point between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid development in computer power at the time of composing continued.

Current research

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded initiative active from 2013 to 2023, has actually established a particularly comprehensive and publicly accessible atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, scientists from Duke University performed a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.

Criticisms of simulation-based techniques

The artificial nerve cell design presumed by Kurzweil and used in lots of current artificial neural network executions is easy compared to biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely have to catch the detailed cellular behaviour of biological neurons, currently understood only in broad outline. The overhead presented by complete modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical details of neural behaviour (particularly on a molecular scale) would need computational powers numerous orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's price quote. In addition, the price quotes do not represent glial cells, which are known to play a function in cognitive procedures. [125]
A fundamental criticism of the simulated brain approach stems from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is a vital element of human intelligence and is necessary to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is correct, any fully practical brain model will require to include more than just the nerve cells (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 suffice.

Philosophical perspective

"Strong AI" as defined in approach

In 1980, philosopher John Searle coined the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese space argument. [128] He proposed a distinction in between two hypotheses about expert system: [f]
Strong AI hypothesis: An artificial intelligence system can have "a mind" and "consciousness". Weak AI hypothesis: An expert system system can (just) imitate it believes and has a mind and awareness.
The first one he called "strong" because it makes a stronger statement: it assumes something special has actually happened to the device that exceeds those abilities that we can check. The behaviour of a "weak AI" machine would be precisely identical to a "strong AI" machine, but the latter would likewise have subjective conscious experience. This use is also common in scholastic AI research study and books. [129]
In contrast to Searle and traditional AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil use the term "strong AI" to imply "human level synthetic basic intelligence". [102] This is not the exact same as Searle's strong AI, unless it is presumed that awareness is essential for human-level AGI. Academic theorists such as Searle do not believe that holds true, and to most synthetic intelligence scientists the question is out-of-scope. [130]
Mainstream AI is most thinking about how a program acts. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they don't care if you call it genuine or a simulation." [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no need to understand if it really has mind - certainly, there would be no chance to inform. For AI research study, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is comparable to the statement "artificial basic intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for given, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for scholastic AI research, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have numerous significances, and some elements play considerable roles in sci-fi and the ethics of expert system:

Sentience (or "sensational awareness"): The capability to "feel" understandings or feelings subjectively, instead of the capability to reason about understandings. Some philosophers, such as David Chalmers, utilize the term "awareness" to refer specifically to remarkable awareness, which is roughly equivalent to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience arises is referred to as the tough problem of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel discussed in 1974 that it "seems like" something to be conscious. If we are not conscious, then it does not feel like anything. Nagel utilizes the example of a bat: we can sensibly ask "what does it feel like to be a bat?" However, we are unlikely to ask "what does it seem like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat seems conscious (i.e., has awareness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had accomplished sentience, though this claim was extensively contested by other professionals. [135]
Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a separate individual, particularly to be consciously familiar with one's own thoughts. This is opposed to simply being the "subject of one's thought"-an os or debugger is able to be "aware of itself" (that is, to represent itself in the exact same way it represents everything else)-however this is not what people normally indicate when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]
These traits have an ethical measurement. AI life would provide rise to issues of well-being and legal security, similarly to animals. [136] Other elements of consciousness related to cognitive abilities are likewise relevant to the idea of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to integrate advanced AI with existing legal and social structures is an emerging issue. [138]
Benefits

AGI might have a wide variety of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI could assist alleviate different problems worldwide such as appetite, poverty and illness. [139]
AGI might enhance performance and performance in most tasks. For instance, in public health, AGI might accelerate medical research, especially against cancer. [140] It might look after the senior, [141] and equalize access to fast, premium medical diagnostics. It might use enjoyable, low-cost and customized education. [141] The need to work to subsist might become obsolete if the wealth produced is properly rearranged. [141] [142] This likewise raises the question of the location of human beings in a radically automated society.

AGI could likewise help to make rational decisions, and to anticipate and avoid disasters. It might also assist to enjoy the benefits of potentially devastating technologies such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while avoiding the associated risks. [143] If an AGI's primary objective is to avoid existential catastrophes such as human extinction (which could be tough if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being true), [144] it might take steps to considerably reduce the threats [143] while minimizing the impact of these measures on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential dangers

AGI may represent multiple types of existential risk, which are threats that threaten "the premature termination of Earth-originating intelligent life or the long-term and drastic damage of its potential for desirable future advancement". [145] The threat of human termination from AGI has been the topic of many debates, but there is also the possibility that the advancement of AGI would result in a completely problematic future. Notably, it could be used to spread and maintain the set of worths of whoever establishes it. If mankind still has moral blind areas similar to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, preventing moral progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI might assist in mass monitoring and brainwashing, which might be used to create a stable repressive around the world totalitarian routine. [147] [148] There is likewise a danger for the makers themselves. If machines that are sentient or otherwise worthwhile of moral consideration are mass produced in the future, taking part in a civilizational path that indefinitely ignores their well-being and interests might be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI could improve mankind's future and aid reduce other existential dangers, Toby Ord calls these existential threats "an argument for proceeding with due care", not for "deserting AI". [147]
Risk of loss of control and human extinction

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

So, facing possible futures of incalculable advantages and dangers, the specialists are surely doing whatever possible to ensure the finest outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, 'We'll arrive in a couple of 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 occurring with AI. [153]
The possible fate of mankind has actually sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The comparison mentions that greater intelligence permitted mankind to dominate gorillas, which are now susceptible in ways that they could not have anticipated. As an outcome, the gorilla has actually become an endangered types, not out of malice, but merely as a collateral damage from human activities. [154]
The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to dominate mankind which we need to be mindful not to anthropomorphize them and analyze their intents as we would for people. He stated that individuals won't be "wise enough to design super-intelligent machines, yet ridiculously foolish to the point of offering it moronic objectives with no safeguards". [155] On the other side, the idea of crucial merging suggests that nearly whatever their goals, smart representatives will have reasons to try to survive and get more power as intermediary steps to attaining these objectives. Which this does not need having feelings. [156]
Many scholars who are concerned about existential threat advocate for more research into resolving the "control problem" to respond to the concern: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers carry out to increase the probability that their recursively-improving AI would continue to act in a friendly, rather than devastating, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is complicated by the AI arms race (which might lead to a race to the bottom of security precautions in order to release products before competitors), [159] and using AI in weapon systems. [160]
The thesis that AI can pose existential risk likewise has detractors. Skeptics usually say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI sidetrack from other concerns related to existing AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder considers that for many individuals outside of the innovation industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are currently viewed as though they were AGI, causing further misunderstanding and fear. [162]
Skeptics in some cases charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an illogical belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an unreasonable belief in a supreme God. [163] Some researchers think that the interaction projects on AI existential danger by specific AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) may be an at attempt at regulatory capture and to pump up interest in their items. [164] [165]
In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, in addition to other industry leaders and scientists, provided a joint statement asserting that "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI must be a global top priority alongside other societal-scale threats such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]
Mass joblessness

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

According to Stephen Hawking, the outcome of automation on the quality of life will depend upon how the wealth will be rearranged: [142]
Everyone can delight in a life of elegant leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or the majority of individuals can wind up miserably bad if the machine-owners effectively lobby versus wealth redistribution. So far, the pattern appears to be towards the 2nd option, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality

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

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive capabilities comparable to those of the animal or human brain AI effect AI safety - Research area on making AI safe and helpful AI alignment - AI conformance to the intended goal A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža Expert system Automated device knowing - Process of automating the application of device knowing BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research effort revealed by the Obama administration China Brain Project Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research study centre General game playing - Ability of expert system to play different games Generative expert system - AI system capable of creating content in reaction to triggers Human Brain Project - Scientific research job Intelligence amplification - Use of information technology to augment human intelligence (IA). Machine ethics - Moral behaviours of man-made machines. Moravec's paradox. Multi-task knowing - Solving several machine finding out tasks at the very same time. Neural scaling law - Statistical law in device learning. Outline of expert system - Overview of and topical guide to expert system. Transhumanism - Philosophical movement. Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or kind of artificial intelligence. Transfer knowing - Machine learning technique. Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors. Hardware for synthetic intelligence - Hardware specifically created and enhanced for expert system. Weak artificial intelligence - Form of synthetic intelligence.
Notes

^ a b See listed below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the scholastic meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the article Chinese room. ^ AI creator John McCarthy writes: "we can not yet identify in general what kinds of computational treatments we desire to call smart. " [26] (For a discussion of some meanings of intelligence utilized by expert system scientists, see viewpoint of expert system.). ^ The Lighthill report particularly slammed AI's "grand goals" and led the taking apart of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became figured out to fund just "mission-oriented direct research study, instead of standard undirected research". [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy writes "it would be a great relief to the rest of the employees in AI if the innovators of new general formalisms would express their hopes in a more safeguarded form than has in some cases been the case." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is utilized. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly correspond to 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil introduced. ^ As defined in a basic AI textbook: "The assertion that machines might possibly act smartly (or, possibly better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that makers that do so are really believing (rather than simulating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is artificial narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is created to perform a single job. ^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to ensure that synthetic basic intelligence advantages all of humankind. ^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's brand-new goal is creating synthetic general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to develop 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 determined as being active in 2020. ^ a b c "AI timelines: What do experts in synthetic intelligence 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 leader Geoffrey Hinton quits Google and alerts of danger ahead". The New York Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is hard to see how you can prevent the bad stars 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 shows triggers of AGI. ^ Butler, Octavia E. (1993 ). Parable of the Sower. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4466-7550-5. All that you touch you alter. All that you change changes you. ^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming. ^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Artificial Intelligence". The New York Times. The real hazard is not AI itself however the method we deploy it. ^ "Impressed by expert system? Experts state AGI is coming next, and it has 'existential' threats". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might posture existential threats to humankind. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The first superintelligence will be the last innovation 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 danger of termination from AI should be a worldwide top priority. ^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts warn of danger of extinction from AI. ^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York City Times. We are far from developing devices that can outthink us in general methods. ^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not present an existential danger". Medium. There is no reason 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 initial on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil describes strong AI as "device intelligence with the complete variety of human intelligence.". ^ "The Age of Expert System: hikvisiondb.webcam George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the original on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014. ^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they use for "human-level" intelligence in the physical 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 artificial 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 goes well". 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 smart traits is based upon the subjects covered by major AI textbooks, including: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998. ^ Johnson 1987. ^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York: 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 reassessed: The idea of competence". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: The principle of skills". 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 happens 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 young boy - 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 identify GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC] ^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI designs like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing whatever from the bar exam to AP Biology. Here's a list of hard examinations both AI versions have passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Expert System Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Capitalize on It". Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is 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 suggested testing an AI chatbot's capability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to determine human-like intelligence". Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). "Mustafa Suleyman: My brand-new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Expert System" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (Second ed.). New York City: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".). ^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Specifying Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Expert System, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 May 2013. ^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". Stanford University Human-Centered Expert System. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50. ^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). "Artificial Intelligence, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the initial on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022. ^ Simon 1965, p. 96 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109. ^ "Scientist on the Set: bphomesteading.com An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the original on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008. ^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), priced quote in Crevier (1993, p. 109). ^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994. ^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment". ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22. ^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see likewise Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212. ^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). "Respond to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the original 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 original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system researchers and software application engineers avoided the term synthetic intelligence for fear of being deemed wild-eyed dreamers. ^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26 ^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019. ^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20 ^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300. ^ Gubrud 1997 ^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the original on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022. ^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022. ^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410. ^ "Who created the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., via Life 3.0: 'The term "AGI" was promoted by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel' ^ Wang & Goertzel 2007 ^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summer season 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 original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limitations of maker intelligence: Despite progress in machine intelligence, synthetic basic intelligence is still a major difficulty". 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 experiments with GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL] ^ "Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing "Sparks" of AGI". Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023. ^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). "The Singularity Isn't Near". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014. ^ Winfield, Alan. "Expert system will not become a Frankenstein's 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 general artificial intelligence 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 synthetic intelligence bring us paradise or destruction?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016. ^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future development in expert system: A study of professional opinion. In Fundamental problems of expert system (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham. ^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, edited by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia ^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023. ^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023. ^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The originality of makers: AI takes the Torrance Test". Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185. ^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema. ^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). "Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024". Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024. ^ "Introducing OpenAI o1-preview". OpenAI. 12 September 2024. ^ Knight, Will. "OpenAI Announces a Brand-new AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024. ^ "OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved". Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024. ^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024. ^ "Next-Gen AI: OpenAI and Meta's Leap Towards Reasoning Machines". Unite.ai. 19 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024. ^ James, Alex P. (2022 ). "The Why, What, 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 original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022. ^ Pei, Jing; Deng, Lei; Song, Sen; Zhao, Mingguo; Zhang, Youhui; Wu, Shuang; Wang, Guanrui; Zou, Zhe; Wu, Zhenzhi; He, Wei; Chen, Feng; Deng, Ning; Wu, Si; Wang, Yu; Wu, Yujie (2019 ). "Towards artificial basic intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture". Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the 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 original on 4 December 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2020. ^ a b Butz, Martin V. (1 March 2021). "Towards Strong AI". KI - Künstliche Intelligenz. 35 (1 ): 91-101. doi:10.1007/ s13218-021-00705-x. ISSN 1610-1987. S2CID 256065190. ^ Liu, Feng; Shi, Yong; Liu, Ying (2017 ). "Intelligence Quotient and Intelligence Grade of Artificial Intelligence". Annals of Data Science. 4 (2 ): 179-191. arXiv:1709.10242. doi:10.1007/ s40745-017-0109-0. S2CID 37900130. ^ Brien, Jörn (5 October 2017). "Google-KI doppelt so schlau wie Siri" [Google AI is two times as smart as Siri - however a six-year-old beats both] (in German). Archived from the original on 3 January 2019. Retrieved 2 January 2019. ^ Grossman, Gary (3 September 2020). "We're getting in the AI twilight zone in between narrow and general AI". VentureBeat. Archived from the initial 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 announced GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. ... So is GPT-3 the first example of an AGI system? This is arguable, however the consensus is that it is not AGI. ... If nothing else, GPT-3 informs us there is a happy medium in between narrow and general AI. ^ Quach, Katyanna. "A designer constructed an AI chatbot using GPT-3 that helped a male speak again to his late fiancée. OpenAI shut it down". The Register. Archived from the original on 16 October 2021. Retrieved 16 October 2021. ^ Wiggers, Kyle (13 May 2022), "DeepMind's new AI can carry out over 600 jobs, from playing video games to managing robots", 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 experiments with GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL] ^ Metz, Cade (1 May 2023). "' The Godfather of A.I.' Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead". The New York City Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ Bove, Tristan. "A.I. could equal human intelligence in 'just a few years,' states CEO of Google's primary A.I. research study laboratory". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024. ^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO states AI could pass human tests in 5 years". Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead". ^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). "Why everyone appears to disagree on how to specify Artificial General Intelligence". Fast Company. ^ Nosta, John (5 January 2024). "The Accelerating Path to Artificial General Intelligence". Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 March 2024. ^ Hickey, Alex. "Whole Brain Emulation: A Giant Step for Neuroscience". Tech Brew. Retrieved 8 November 2023. ^ Sandberg & Boström 2008. ^ Drachman 2005. ^ a b Russell & Norvig 2003. ^ Moravec 1988, p. 61. ^ Moravec 1998. ^ Holmgaard Mersh, Amalie (15 September 2023). "Decade-long European research study task 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 wide range of views in present research, all of which need grounding to some degree ^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How uploading our minds to a computer might become possible". The Conversation. Retrieved 8 November 2023. ^ Searle 1980 ^ For instance: Russell & Norvig 2003, Oxford University Press Dictionary of Psychology Archived 3 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine (quoted in" Encyclopedia.com"),. MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (priced 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 curiosity by the field about why a program acts the method it does. ^ Chalmers, David J. (9 August 2023). "Could a Big Language Model Be Conscious?". Boston Review. ^ Seth, Anil. "Consciousness". New Scientist. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Nagel 1974. ^ "The Google engineer who believes the business's AI has actually come to life". The Washington Post. 11 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Nosta, John (18 December 2023). "Should Expert System Have Rights?". Psychology Today. Retrieved 5 September 2024. ^ Akst, Daniel (10 April 2023). "Should Robots With Artificial Intelligence Have Moral or Legal Rights?". The Wall Street Journal. ^ "Artificial General Intelligence - Do [es] the cost outweigh advantages?". 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "How we can Take advantage of Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) - Unite.AI". www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. "What Will Our Society 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, threats, strategies (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, UK; New York City, New York, USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Piper, Kelsey (19 November 2018). "How technological progress is making it likelier than ever that humans will 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 City, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6. ^ a b Ord, Toby (2020 ). "Chapter 5: Future Risks, Unaligned Artificial Intelligence". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9. ^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious". Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). "Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York 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 takes a look at the implications of artificial intelligence - 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 remarkable Facebook argument between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI". The remarkable Facebook argument between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI (in French). Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Will Artificial Intelligence Doom The Mankind Within The Next 100 Years?". HuffPost. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sotala, Kaj; Yampolskiy, Roman V. (19 December 2014). "Responses to disastrous AGI danger: a study". Physica Scripta. 90 (1 ): 018001. doi:10.1088/ 0031-8949/90/ 1/018001. ISSN 0031-8949. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (First ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Chow, Andrew R.; Perrigo, Billy (16 February 2023). "The AI Arms Race Is On. Start Worrying". TIME. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Tetlow, Gemma (12 January 2017). "AI arms race threats spiralling out of control, report cautions". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). "Experts disagree over hazard presented but expert system 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 the End of Humanity Mean for Me?". The Atlantic. Archived from the initial on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 12 December 2015. ^ Titcomb, James (30 October 2023). "Big Tech is stiring worries over AI, caution researchers". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain founder says huge tech is lying about AI termination danger". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Eloundou, Tyna; Manning, Sam; Mishkin, Pamela; Rock, Daniel (17 March 2023). "GPTs are GPTs: An early 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 employees could see their jobs affected by AI. These are the tasks most impacted". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk states we need universal standard earnings since 'in the future, physical work will be a choice'". Business Insider. Archived from the initial on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Sources

UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the initial on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021. Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press. Clocksin, William (August 2003), "Expert system and the future", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007. Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous Search for Expert System. New York City, NY: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-02997-3. Darrach, Brad (20 November 1970), "Meet Shakey, the First Electronic Person", Life Magazine, pp. 58-68. Drachman, D. (2005 ), "Do we have brain to spare?", Neurology, 64 (12 ): 2004-2005, doi:10.1212/ 01. WNL.0000166914.38327. BB, PMID 15985565, S2CID 38482114. Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983 ), The Fifth Generation: 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 response to Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott's review 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 initial on 7 January 2016, retrieved 1 April 2009. Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), "Nanotechnology and International Security", Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the original on 29 May 2011, obtained 7 May 2011. Howe, J. (November 1994), Expert System at Edinburgh University: a Viewpoint, archived from the initial 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 ), "Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey", Expert System: a paper symposium, Science Research Council. Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Artificial Intelligence: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving (5th ed.), The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., p. 720, ISBN 978-0-8053-4780-7. McCarthy, John (2007b). What is Expert system?. Stanford University. The supreme effort is to make computer programs that can solve issues and achieve goals in the world in addition to human beings. Moravec, Hans (1988 ), Mind Children, Harvard University Press Moravec, Hans (1998 ), "When will hardware match the human brain?", Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 1, archived from the initial on 15 June 2006, 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 ), Expert System: A New Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, ISBN 978-1-5586-0467-4 NRC (1999 ), "Developments in Artificial Intelligence", Funding a Transformation: Government Support for Computing Research, National Academy Press, archived from the initial on 12 January 2008, retrieved 29 September 2007 Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Rational 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 ), Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (second ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-790395-2 Sandberg, Anders; Boström, Nick (2008 ), Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap (PDF), Technical Report # 2008-3, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University, archived (PDF) from the original on 25 March 2020, 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, recovered 3 September 2020 Simon, H. A. (1965 ), The Shape of Automation for Men and Management, New York City: Harper & Row Turing, Alan (October 1950). "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". Mind. 59 (236 ): 433-460. doi:10.1093/ mind/LIX.236.433. ISSN 1460-2113. JSTOR 2251299. S2CID 14636783.
de Vega, Manuel; Glenberg, Arthur; Graesser, Arthur, eds. (2008 ), Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-1992-1727-4 Wang, Pei; Goertzel, Ben (2007 ). "Introduction: Aspects of Artificial General Intelligence". Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms: Proceedings of the AGI Workshop 2006. IOS Press. pp. 1-16. ISBN 978-1-5860-3758-1. Archived from the original on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 - via ResearchGate.
Further reading

Aleksander, Igor (1996 ), Impossible Minds, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 978-1-8609-4036-1 Azevedo FA, Carvalho LR, Grinberg LT, Farfel J, et al. (April 2009), "Equal 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, obtained 4 September 2013 - via ResearchGate Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Expert System Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the initial on 23 July 2014, obtained 31 August 2012 Cukier, Kenneth, "Ready for Robots? How to Consider the Future of AI", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 4 (July/August 2019), pp. 192-98. George Dyson, historian of computing, writes (in what might be called "Dyson's Law") that "Any system simple enough to be easy to understand will not be made complex enough to act smartly, while any system made complex enough to behave intelligently will be too complicated to comprehend." (p. 197.) Computer researcher Alex Pentland writes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead easy dumb. They work, however they work by brute force." (p. 198.). Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the initial on 26 July 2010, retrieved 25 July 2010. Gleick, James, "The Fate of Free Will" (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 identifies us from machines. For biological creatures, factor and purpose originate from acting in the world and experiencing the repercussions. Artificial intelligences - disembodied, complete 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: Residing In the Shadow of AI, Henry Holt, 311 pp.), The New York City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. "' We can't reasonably anticipate that those who wish 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 rely on governments driven by project finance contributions [from tech business] to press back.' ... Marcus information the needs that citizens must make of their governments and the tech business. They consist of openness on how AI systems work; payment for individuals if their data [are] used to train LLMs (large language design) s and the right to authorization to this usage; and the capability to hold tech companies liable for the damages they bring on by removing Section 230, enforcing cash penalites, and passing more stringent product liability laws ... Marcus likewise suggests ... that a brand-new, AI-specific federal agency, comparable to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, may provide the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law teacher Chinmayi Sharma ... suggests ... establish [ing] an expert licensing regime for engineers that would function in a similar method to medical licenses, malpractice matches, and the Hippocratic oath in medication. 'What if, like medical professionals,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers likewise pledged to do no harm?'" (p. 46.). Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), "Abstraction and reformulation in synthetic intelligence", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 358, no. 1435, pp. 1197-1204, doi:10.1098/ rstb.2003.1317, PMC 1693218, PMID 12903653. Hughes-Castleberry, Kenna, "A Murder Mystery Puzzle: The literary puzzle Cain's Jawbone, which has puzzled human beings for years, exposes the constraints of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder secret competition has revealed that although NLP (natural-language processing) models are capable of incredible tasks, their abilities are extremely much limited by the quantity of context they receive. This [...] might cause [troubles] for researchers who want to use them to do things such as examine ancient languages. In many cases, there are few historical records on long-gone civilizations to function as training data for such a purpose." (p. 82.). Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: forum.altaycoins.com People now use A.I. to produce fake videos indistinguishable from genuine ones. How much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we suggest sensible videos produced utilizing expert system that really trick people, then they barely exist. The fakes aren't deep, and the deeps aren't fake. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in basic, operating in our media as counterfeited evidence. Their role better looks like that of animations, specifically smutty ones." (p. 59.). - Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We need to prevent humanizing machine-learning models used in scientific research", Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81. Lepore, Jill, "The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a machine a conversation?", The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16. Marcus, Gary, "Artificial Confidence: Even the most recent, buzziest systems of artificial basic intelligence are stymmied by the very same old issues", Scientific American, vol. 327, no. 4 (October 2022), pp. 42-45. McCarthy, John (October 2007), "From here to human-level AI", Artificial Intelligence, 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 initial on 3 March 2016, recovered 29 September 2007. Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1963 ), "GPS: A Program that Simulates Human Thought", in Feigenbaum, E. A.; Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, New York: McGraw-Hill. Omohundro, Steve (2008 ), The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence, presented and distributed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California. Press, Eyal, "In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition innovation lead authorities to ignore contradictory proof?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26. Roivainen, Eka, "AI's IQ: ChatGPT aced a [basic intelligence] test but showed that intelligence can not be measured by IQ alone", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 1 (July/August 2023), p. 7. "Despite its high IQ, ChatGPT fails at tasks that need real humanlike reasoning or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT seemed not able to reason realistically and attempted to depend on its huge database of ... facts obtained from online texts. " - Scharre, Paul, "Killer Apps: linked.aub.edu.lb 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 programmers did not prepare for. Learning systems are restricted by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have already led to catastrophe. Advanced autopilot functions in cars and trucks, although they perform well in some situations, have actually driven vehicles without cautioning into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked cars and trucks. In the incorrect scenario, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an immediate. When an enemy is trying to control and hack an AI system, the dangers are even greater." (p. 140.). Sutherland, J. G. (1990 ), "Holographic Model of Memory, Learning, and Expression", International Journal of Neural Systems, vol. 1-3, pp. 256-267. - Vincent, James, "Horny Robot Baby Voice: James Vincent on AI chatbots", London Review of Books, vol. 46, no. 19 (10 October 2024), pp. 29-32." [AI chatbot] programs are enabled by brand-new innovations however depend on the timelelss human tendency to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.). Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.