Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that matches or goes beyond human cognitive abilities throughout a large range of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to specific jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that greatly goes beyond human cognitive capabilities. AGI is considered one of the meanings of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a main objective of AI research and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 study identified 72 active AGI research study and development projects throughout 37 nations. [4]
The timeline for achieving AGI remains a topic of continuous dispute amongst scientists and experts. As of 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or decades; others maintain it might take a century or longer; a minority believe it might never ever be accomplished; and another minority declares that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has revealed concerns about the rapid progress towards AGI, recommending it could be attained faster than many anticipate. [7]
There is debate on the specific meaning of AGI and relating to whether contemporary big language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early types of AGI. [8] AGI is a typical subject in science fiction and futures research studies. [9] [10]
Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential threat. [11] [12] [13] Many experts on AI have specified that mitigating the risk of human termination postured by AGI needs to be an international priority. [14] [15] Others find the development of AGI to be too remote to provide such a danger. [16] [17]
Terminology

AGI is also called strong AI, [18] [19] complete AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level smart AI, wiki.snooze-hotelsoftware.de or general intelligent action. [21]
Some scholastic sources book the term "strong AI" for computer system programs that experience life or consciousness. [a] In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) has the ability to resolve one particular problem but lacks general cognitive abilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the very 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 much more normally smart than humans, [23] while the notion of transformative AI associates with AI having a big influence on society, for example, comparable to the agricultural or commercial transformation. [24]
A framework for classifying AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They define five levels of AGI: emerging, proficient, specialist, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a skilled AGI is specified as an AI that exceeds 50% of skilled grownups in a large range of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. a synthetic superintelligence) is similarly specified but with a threshold of 100%. They think about big language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]
Characteristics

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

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

• communicate in natural language
• if essential, integrate these skills in completion of any offered objective

Many interdisciplinary methods (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) consider additional traits such as imagination (the capability to form unique mental images and principles) [28] and autonomy. [29]
Computer-based systems that display much of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated thinking, decision support group, robot, evolutionary computation, intelligent agent). There is dispute about whether modern AI systems have them to an appropriate degree.

Physical qualities

Other capabilities are thought about desirable in intelligent systems, as they might impact intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: [30]
- the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and - the capability to act (e.g. move and manipulate objects, modification area to check out, etc).
This includes the capability to spot and react to hazard. [31]
Although the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc) and the capability to act (e.g. move and manipulate objects, modification area to explore, kenpoguy.com etc) can be preferable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical abilities are not strictly required for users.atw.hu an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that large language designs (LLMs) may currently be or become AGI. Even from a less positive perspective on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like kind; being a silicon-based computational system is adequate, supplied it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This interpretation aligns with the understanding that AGI has actually never been proscribed a specific physical personification and thus does not demand a capacity for locomotion or conventional "eyes and ears". [32]
Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests meant to verify human-level AGI have actually been considered, including: [33] [34]
The concept of the test is that the device has to attempt and pretend to be a male, by addressing questions put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is reasonably persuading. A substantial part of a jury, who need to not be expert about machines, must 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 resolve it, one would require to implement AGI, due to the fact that the option is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]
There are many issues that have been conjectured to require basic intelligence to resolve as well as people. Examples include computer vision, natural language understanding, and handling unexpected scenarios while resolving any real-world problem. [48] Even a particular job like translation requires a maker to check out and write in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), understand the context (knowledge), and faithfully replicate the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these problems require to be solved at the same time in order to reach human-level maker performance.

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

Classical AI

Modern AI research began in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI researchers were convinced that synthetic basic intelligence was possible which it would exist in just a couple of years. [51] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do." [52]
Their forecasts were the motivation for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI scientists thought they might develop by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was an expert [53] on the project of making HAL 9000 as sensible as possible according to the consensus forecasts of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of producing 'artificial intelligence' will considerably be solved". [54]
Several classical AI projects, such as Doug Lenat's Cyc job (that began in 1984), and Allen Newell's Soar project, were directed at AGI.

However, in the early 1970s, it ended up being apparent that scientists had grossly undervalued the difficulty of the job. Funding companies ended up being doubtful of AGI and put scientists under increasing pressure to produce helpful "used AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project restored interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that included AGI goals like "carry on a table talk". [58] In response to this and the success of professional systems, both market and government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, self-confidence in AI marvelously collapsed in the late 1980s, and the objectives of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never fulfilled. [60] For the 2nd time in twenty years, AI scientists who anticipated the imminent accomplishment of AGI had been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a track record for making vain promises. They ended up being hesitant to make predictions at all [d] and prevented mention of "human level" expert system for fear of being identified "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]
Narrow AI research study

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI attained commercial success and scholastic respectability by focusing on particular sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable results and industrial applications, such as speech acknowledgment and suggestion algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now utilized thoroughly throughout the innovation market, and research in this vein is heavily funded in both academic community and industry. As of 2018 [upgrade], advancement in this field was thought about an emerging trend, and a fully grown stage was anticipated to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]
At the millenium, lots of mainstream AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI could be developed by combining programs that solve numerous sub-problems. Hans Moravec composed in 1988:

I am positive that this bottom-up route to artificial intelligence will one day meet the traditional top-down path more than half way, prepared to offer the real-world proficiency and the commonsense understanding that has been so frustratingly elusive in thinking programs. Fully intelligent makers will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven unifying the 2 efforts. [65]
However, even at the time, this was disputed. For instance, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the sign grounding hypothesis by specifying:

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

The term "synthetic basic intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation of the ramifications 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 increases "the ability to please objectives in a wide range of environments". [68] This type of AGI, defined by the ability to increase a mathematical meaning of intelligence instead of exhibit human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal artificial 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 explained by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and initial results". 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 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 visitor lecturers.

As of 2023 [upgrade], a little number of computer researchers are active in AGI research, and lots of contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, increasingly more researchers have an interest in open-ended knowing, [76] [77] which is the idea of enabling AI to continuously find out and innovate like human beings do.

Feasibility

Since 2023, the development and possible achievement of AGI remains a topic of intense argument within the AI neighborhood. While traditional consensus held that AGI was a remote objective, recent advancements have led some scientists and industry figures to claim that early forms of AGI might currently exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do". This prediction stopped working to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is unlikely in the 21st century because it would need "unforeseeable and basically unforeseeable advancements" and a "clinically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf between modern-day computing and human-level synthetic intelligence is as large as the gulf in between current area flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]
A further difficulty is the lack of clarity in specifying what intelligence requires. Does it need awareness? Must it display the capability to set objectives as well as pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as planning, thinking, and causal understanding needed? Does intelligence require clearly reproducing the brain and its specific professors? Does it require emotions? [81]
Most AI researchers believe strong AI can be attained in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, reject the possibility of attaining strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who think human-level AI will be achieved, but that today level of development is such that a date can not properly be predicted. [84] AI experts' views on the feasibility of AGI wax and wane. Four polls performed in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the average quote among experts for when they would be 50% confident AGI would get here was 2040 to 2050, depending on the poll, with the mean being 2081. Of the specialists, 16.5% responded to with "never" when asked the very same concern however with a 90% confidence rather. [85] [86] Further existing AGI development considerations can be found above Tests for validating human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute found that "over [a] 60-year time frame there is a strong bias towards forecasting the arrival of human-level AI as between 15 and 25 years from the time the prediction was made". They evaluated 95 forecasts made in between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will come about. [87]
In 2023, Microsoft scientists published an in-depth examination of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, our company believe that it might fairly be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) variation of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outshines 99% of human beings on the Torrance tests of imaginative thinking. [89] [90]
Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig composed in 2023 that a significant level of basic intelligence has currently been achieved with frontier models. They wrote that unwillingness to this view originates from four primary factors: a "healthy apprehension about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or methods", a "dedication to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "concern about the financial implications of AGI". [91]
2023 likewise marked the emergence of big multimodal designs (large language designs capable of processing or producing numerous methods such as text, audio, and images). [92]
In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the very first of a series of designs that "invest more time thinking before they react". According to Mira Murati, this capability to believe before responding represents a new, extra paradigm. It enhances 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 calculate power. [93] [94]
An OpenAI employee, Vahid Kazemi, claimed in 2024 that the business had actually accomplished AGI, specifying, "In my opinion, we have actually already achieved AGI and it's even more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "much better than any human at any job", it is "better than many people at many tasks." He likewise addressed criticisms that big language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing procedure to the clinical method of observing, assuming, and verifying. These declarations have stimulated argument, as they count on a broad and unconventional definition of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence across all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's designs show exceptional versatility, they might not fully fulfill this requirement. Notably, Kazemi's comments came soon 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 historically gone through durations of quick progress separated by periods when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were fundamental advances in hardware, software or both to create area for further development. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the hardware readily available in the twentieth century was not sufficient to execute deep learning, which needs great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]
In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel says that price quotes of the time needed before a genuinely flexible AGI is constructed vary from ten years to over a century. As of 2007 [update], the consensus in the AGI research neighborhood seemed to be that the timeline talked about by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. in between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI researchers have offered a broad range of opinions on whether development will be this quick. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such viewpoints discovered a predisposition towards anticipating that the beginning of AGI would happen within 16-26 years for modern and historic forecasts alike. That paper has actually been criticized for how it categorized viewpoints as professional or non-expert. [104]
In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton established a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competition with a top-5 test mistake rate of 15.3%, substantially much better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the traditional approach utilized a weighted amount of ratings from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered as the initial ground-breaker of the present deep knowing wave. [105]
In 2017, scientists Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu performed intelligence tests on openly offered and easily available weak AI such as Google AI, Apple's Siri, and others. At the maximum, these AIs reached an IQ value of about 47, which corresponds approximately to a six-year-old child in first grade. An adult comes to about 100 typically. Similar tests were performed in 2014, with the IQ score reaching a maximum value of 27. [106] [107]
In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language design efficient in carrying out many varied jobs without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat article, while there is consensus 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 same year, Jason Rohrer utilized his GPT-3 account to develop a chatbot, and offered a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI asked for changes to the chatbot to abide by their safety guidelines; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]
In 2022, DeepMind established Gato, a "general-purpose" system efficient in performing more than 600 various jobs. [110]
In 2023, Microsoft Research published a study on an early variation of OpenAI's GPT-4, competing that it showed more basic intelligence than previous AI designs and demonstrated human-level efficiency in tasks covering several domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study sparked an argument on whether GPT-4 might be thought about an early, insufficient version of artificial general intelligence, emphasizing the requirement for additional expedition and evaluation of such systems. [111]
In 2023, the AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton stated that: [112]
The idea that this things could really get smarter than people - a few individuals thought that, [...] But many individuals thought it was way off. And I believed it was way off. I believed it was 30 to 50 years or even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis likewise stated that "The development in the last few years has been quite amazing", which he sees no reason that it would slow down, expecting AGI within a decade or even a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, stated his expectation that within five years, AI would be capable of passing any test at least as well as human beings. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI employee, estimated AGI by 2027 to be "strikingly plausible". [115]
Whole brain emulation

While the advancement of transformer models like in ChatGPT is considered the most appealing course to AGI, [116] [117] whole brain emulation can function as an alternative approach. With whole brain simulation, a brain model is built by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and after that copying and imitating it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation model need to be adequately devoted to the initial, so that it acts in virtually the very same method as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is discussed in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research purposes. It has actually been discussed in synthetic intelligence research [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that might provide the required detailed understanding are improving rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] forecasts that a map of adequate quality will appear on a comparable timescale to the computing power required to imitate it.

Early estimates

For low-level brain simulation, a very effective cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be needed, given the enormous quantity of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells has on typical 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other nerve cells. The brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by their adult years. Estimates vary for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A quote of the brain's processing power, based upon a basic switch design for nerve cell activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]
In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at various quotes for the hardware needed to equate to the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 computations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a "calculation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a step utilized to rate present supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was accomplished in 2022.) He utilized this figure to predict the essential hardware would be readily available sometime between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential growth in computer power at the time of writing continued.

Current research

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded effort active from 2013 to 2023, has established an especially in-depth and publicly available 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 many current synthetic neural network applications is basic compared with biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely need to record the detailed cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, presently comprehended only in broad outline. The overhead introduced by complete modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (specifically on a molecular scale) would require computational powers numerous orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's price quote. In addition, the estimates do not represent glial cells, which are understood to play a function in cognitive processes. [125]
A fundamental criticism of the simulated brain technique stems from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is an important aspect of human intelligence and is essential to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is proper, any fully practical brain design will require to incorporate more than just the nerve cells (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual embodiment (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an alternative, however it is unidentified whether this would suffice.

Philosophical point of view

"Strong AI" as specified in approach

In 1980, philosopher John Searle created the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese room argument. [128] He proposed a distinction in between two hypotheses about expert system: [f]
Strong AI hypothesis: An expert system system can have "a mind" and "consciousness". Weak AI hypothesis: An artificial intelligence system can (only) imitate it believes and has a mind and consciousness.
The first one he called "strong" due to the fact that it makes a stronger declaration: it presumes something special has actually occurred to the device that goes beyond those abilities that we can test. The behaviour of a "weak AI" device would be specifically similar to a "strong AI" machine, but the latter would also have subjective mindful experience. This use is likewise typical in academic AI research and textbooks. [129]
In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil utilize the term "strong AI" to suggest "human level artificial basic intelligence". [102] This is not the like Searle's strong AI, unless it is assumed that consciousness is needed for human-level AGI. Academic philosophers such as Searle do not believe that is the case, and to most synthetic intelligence researchers the question is out-of-scope. [130]
Mainstream AI is most interested in how a program acts. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they do not care if you call it genuine or a simulation." [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no requirement to know if it in fact has mind - indeed, there would be no other way to tell. For AI research study, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is comparable to the statement "artificial general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for granted, and don't care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 various things.

Consciousness

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

Sentience (or "remarkable consciousness"): The ability to "feel" perceptions or feelings subjectively, as opposed to the capability to reason about understandings. Some theorists, such as David Chalmers, use the term "consciousness" to refer specifically to extraordinary consciousness, which is approximately equivalent to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience develops is called the tough problem of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel described in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be conscious. If we are not mindful, then it does not feel like anything. Nagel uses the example of a bat: we can sensibly ask "what does it seem like to be a bat?" However, we are not likely to ask "what does it feel like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat appears to be conscious (i.e., has awareness) but a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the company's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had achieved life, though this claim was widely challenged by other experts. [135]
Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a separate person, especially to be purposely familiar with one's own ideas. This is opposed to just being the "topic of one's thought"-an os or debugger is able to be "knowledgeable about itself" (that is, to represent itself in the very same way it represents whatever else)-however this is not what individuals typically indicate when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]
These traits have an ethical dimension. AI sentience would provide rise to concerns of well-being and legal protection, similarly to animals. [136] Other elements of awareness associated to cognitive capabilities are also relevant to the concept of AI rights. [137] Determining how to incorporate sophisticated AI with existing legal and social structures is an emerging concern. [138]
Benefits

AGI could have a variety of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI could help alleviate various issues on the planet such as cravings, poverty and health issue. [139]
AGI could improve productivity and effectiveness in many jobs. For instance, in public health, AGI could accelerate medical research study, significantly against cancer. [140] It might look after the elderly, [141] and equalize access to quick, high-quality medical diagnostics. It could provide fun, inexpensive and personalized education. [141] The need to work to subsist could end up being outdated if the wealth produced is correctly redistributed. [141] [142] This likewise raises the question of the place of humans in a drastically automated society.

AGI could also assist to make rational choices, and to expect and avoid catastrophes. It could also assist to profit of potentially devastating innovations such as nanotechnology or environment engineering, while avoiding the associated threats. [143] If an AGI's primary goal is to avoid existential disasters such as human extinction (which could be difficult if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being true), [144] it could take measures to drastically lower the risks [143] while lessening the effect of these measures on our lifestyle.

Risks

Existential threats

AGI might represent numerous types of existential danger, which are risks that threaten "the premature extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or the irreversible and drastic damage of its potential for desirable future development". [145] The danger of human extinction from AGI has actually been the subject of many disputes, however there is also the possibility that the advancement of AGI would lead to a completely flawed future. Notably, it could be used to spread and maintain the set of values of whoever establishes it. If humankind still has moral blind areas similar to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, avoiding ethical development. [146] Furthermore, AGI could facilitate mass security and brainwashing, which could be used to produce a stable repressive worldwide totalitarian routine. [147] [148] There is also a risk for the devices themselves. If devices that are sentient or otherwise worthy of moral consideration are mass created in the future, engaging in a civilizational course that forever disregards their welfare and interests might be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering how much AGI could enhance humanity's future and help in reducing other existential threats, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for proceeding with due caution", not for "deserting AI". [147]
Risk of loss of control and human termination

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

So, facing possible futures of enormous benefits and risks, the professionals are undoubtedly doing whatever possible to make sure the finest result, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll show up in a few years,' would we just reply, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is basically what is occurring with AI. [153]
The possible fate of humanity has sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast specifies that greater intelligence allowed humankind to control gorillas, which are now vulnerable in methods that they could not have actually anticipated. As an outcome, the gorilla has ended up being an endangered types, not out of malice, however merely as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]
The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to dominate mankind which we ought to take care not to anthropomorphize them and translate their intents as we would for humans. He stated that people will not be "smart sufficient to design super-intelligent makers, yet unbelievably foolish to the point of offering it moronic goals without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the idea of important convergence suggests that almost whatever their goals, smart representatives will have factors to try to endure and obtain more power as intermediary steps to attaining these goals. And that this does not require having feelings. [156]
Many scholars who are concerned about existential risk supporter for more research study into fixing the "control problem" to respond to the question: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers implement to maximise the likelihood that their recursively-improving AI would continue to act in a friendly, instead of harmful, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is complicated by the AI arms race (which could lead to a race to the bottom of security preventative measures in order to launch products before rivals), [159] and the use of AI in weapon systems. [160]
The thesis that AI can posture existential danger also has detractors. Skeptics generally say that AGI is not likely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI distract from other problems connected to present AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder considers that for lots of individuals outside of the innovation industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are currently perceived as though they were AGI, causing more misconception and worry. [162]
Skeptics sometimes 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 scientists believe that the interaction campaigns on AI existential danger by particular 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, together with other market leaders and scientists, provided a joint statement asserting that "Mitigating the threat of extinction from AI ought to be an international priority alongside other societal-scale threats such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]
Mass unemployment

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

According to Stephen Hawking, the outcome of automation on the quality of life will depend on how the wealth will be redistributed: [142]
Everyone can delight in a life of glamorous leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or a lot of people can wind up badly poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. Up until now, the trend seems to be toward the 2nd choice, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

Elon Musk thinks about that the automation of society will require governments to embrace a universal standard income. [168]
See likewise

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities comparable to those of the animal or human brain AI result AI security - Research location on making AI safe and beneficial AI alignment - AI conformance to the designated objective A.I. Rising - 2018 film directed by Lazar Bodroža Expert system Automated artificial intelligence - Process of automating the application of device knowing BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research study effort revealed by the Obama administration China Brain Project Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre General video game playing - Ability of artificial intelligence to play different video games Generative synthetic intelligence - AI system capable of generating material in response to triggers Human Brain Project - Scientific research study task Intelligence amplification - Use of info technology to augment human intelligence (IA). Machine principles - Moral behaviours of manufactured makers. Moravec's paradox. Multi-task knowing - Solving several device discovering tasks at the very same time. Neural scaling law - Statistical law in device knowing. Outline of artificial intelligence - Overview of and topical guide to synthetic intelligence. Transhumanism - Philosophical motion. Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or kind of expert system. Transfer learning - Machine learning technique. Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors. Hardware for synthetic intelligence - Hardware specially designed and enhanced for artificial intelligence. Weak artificial intelligence - Form of artificial intelligence.
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 article Chinese space. ^ AI creator John McCarthy writes: "we can not yet define in general what kinds of computational procedures we wish to call smart. " [26] (For a conversation of some definitions of intelligence utilized by synthetic intelligence researchers, see approach of expert system.). ^ The Lighthill report particularly slammed AI's "grandiose goals" and led the dismantling of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became determined to fund just "mission-oriented direct research study, instead of standard undirected research study". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy composes "it would be a terrific relief to the remainder of the employees in AI if the creators of brand-new basic formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more guarded form than has often been the case." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is utilized. More just recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would approximately correspond to 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented. ^ As specified in a basic AI textbook: "The assertion that devices might possibly act intelligently (or, oke.zone perhaps much better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by theorists, and the assertion that machines that do so are actually thinking (as opposed to replicating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is artificial 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 general intelligence benefits all of mankind. ^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's brand-new objective is producing synthetic general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to build 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 recognized as being active in 2020. ^ a b c "AI timelines: What do professionals in artificial 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 Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023. ^ "AI leader Geoffrey Hinton quits Google and alerts of risk ahead". The New York Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is tough 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 explores GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 reveals sparks 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 modifications you. ^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming. ^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Expert System". The New York Times. The genuine threat is not AI itself but the way we release it. ^ "Impressed by artificial intelligence? Experts say AGI is following, and it has 'existential' dangers". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI could pose existential dangers to humankind. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The very first superintelligence will be the last creation that humanity needs to make. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. Mitigating the threat of termination from AI ought to be a worldwide top priority. ^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI professionals warn of danger of termination from AI. ^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York Times. We are far from producing devices that can outthink us in basic ways. ^ 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 original on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil describes strong AI as "machine intelligence with the complete series of human intelligence.". ^ "The Age of Expert System: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the initial on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014. ^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they use for "human-level" intelligence in the physical sign system hypothesis. ^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the original on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007. ^ "What is synthetic superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023. ^ "Expert system is transforming our world - it is on everybody to ensure that it works out". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023. ^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to achieving AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat. ^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007. ^ This list of smart traits is based upon the topics covered by major AI textbooks, consisting of: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998. ^ Johnson 1987. ^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York City: Academic Press. ^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body forms the way we believe: a brand-new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: The principle of competence". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The principle of competence". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966. ^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the 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 real kid - the Turing Test says so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ "Scientists challenge whether computer system 'Eugene Goostman' passed Turing test". BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). "People can not distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC] ^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI designs like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing whatever from the bar examination to AP Biology. Here's a list of hard exams both AI versions have passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023. ^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Artificial Intelligence Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can 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 undependable. The Winograd Schema is outdated. Coffee is the answer". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder recommended checking an AI chatbot's ability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to determine human-like intelligence". Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). "Mustafa Suleyman: My new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024. ^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Artificial Intelligence" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Expert System (Second ed.). New York City: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".). ^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Specifying Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Expert System, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 22 May 2013. ^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". Stanford University Human-Centered Expert System. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024. ^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50. ^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). "Expert System, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the initial on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022. ^ Simon 1965, p. 96 estimated in Crevier 1993, p. 109. ^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008. ^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), priced 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 Expert system, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York City Times. Archived from the initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system researchers and software engineers prevented the term expert system for fear of being viewed as wild-eyed dreamers. ^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26 ^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the 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 Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based Upon Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the original on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022. ^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022. ^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410. ^ "Who created 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 summer school: June 22 - July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009". Archived from the initial on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 - зимен триместър" [Elective courses 2010/2011 - winter season trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020. ^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limitations of device intelligence: Despite progress in maker intelligence, synthetic general intelligence is still a significant challenge". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926. ^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early 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. "Artificial intelligence will not become a Frankenstein's beast". 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 synthetic 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 artificial intelligence bring us utopia or damage?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016. ^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future progress in artificial intelligence: A study of expert viewpoint. In Fundamental problems 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 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 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 function 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). Archived from the original on 4 December 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2020. ^ a b Butz, Martin V. (1 March 2021). "Towards Strong AI". KI - Künstliche Intelligenz. 35 (1 ): 91-101. doi:10.1007/ s13218-021-00705-x. ISSN 1610-1987. S2CID 256065190. ^ Liu, Feng; Shi, Yong; Liu, Ying (2017 ). "Intelligence Quotient and Intelligence Grade of Expert System". Annals of Data Science. 4 (2 ): 179-191. arXiv:1709.10242. doi:10.1007/ s40745-017-0109-0. S2CID 37900130. ^ Brien, Jörn (5 October 2017). "Google-KI doppelt so schlau wie Siri" [Google AI is two times as wise as Siri - but 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 between narrow and basic 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 revealed GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. ... So is GPT-3 the first example of an AGI system? This is debatable, however the consensus is that it is not AGI. ... If absolutely nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a happy medium between narrow and general AI. ^ Quach, Katyanna. "A designer developed an AI chatbot utilizing GPT-3 that helped a guy speak again to his late fiancée. OpenAI shut it down". The Register. Archived from the original on 16 October 2021. Retrieved 16 October 2021. ^ Wiggers, Kyle (13 May 2022), "DeepMind's brand-new AI can perform over 600 jobs, from playing video games to controlling robots", TechCrunch, archived from the initial on 16 June 2022, obtained 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 Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ Bove, Tristan. "A.I. could match human intelligence in 'simply a few years,' states CEO of Google's primary A.I. research study lab". 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 everybody appears to disagree on how to define Artificial General Intelligence". Fast Company. ^ Nosta, John (5 January 2024). "The Accelerating Path to Artificial General Intelligence". Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 March 2024. ^ Hickey, Alex. "Whole Brain Emulation: A 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 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 large range of views in existing research study, all of which need grounding to some degree ^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How submitting our minds to a computer system might end up being possible". The Conversation. Retrieved 8 November 2023. ^ Searle 1980 ^ For example: Russell & Norvig 2003, Oxford University Press Dictionary of Psychology Archived 3 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine (estimated in" Encyclopedia.com"),. MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (quoted in "AITopics"),. Will Biological Computers Enable Artificially Intelligent Machines to Become Persons? Archived 13 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Anthony Tongen.


^ a b c Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 947. ^ though see Explainable expert system for curiosity by the field about why a program behaves the way 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 thinks 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 Artificial Intelligence 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 expense exceed advantages?". 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "How we can Gain from Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) - Unite.AI". www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. "What Will Our Society Appear Like When Expert System Is Everywhere?". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b Stevenson, Matt (8 October 2015). "Answers to Stephen Hawking's AMA are Here!". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ a b Bostrom, Nick (2017 ). " § Preferred order of arrival". Superintelligence: courses, dangers, methods (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, UK; New York City, New York City, USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Piper, Kelsey (19 November 2018). "How technological progress is making it likelier than ever that people will ruin ourselves". Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). "Climate change an 'existential security risk' to Australia, Senate query states". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023. ^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York City, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6. ^ a b Ord, Toby (2020 ). "Chapter 5: Future Risks, Unaligned Artificial Intelligence". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9. ^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious". Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). "Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). "AI Should Be Terrified of Humans". TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023. ^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ a b "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of synthetic intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'". The Independent (UK). Archived from the original on 25 September 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2014. ^ Herger, Mario. "The Gorilla Problem - Enterprise Garage". Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ "The interesting Facebook debate between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI". The interesting Facebook dispute in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the threats of strong AI (in French). Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ "Will Expert System Doom The Human Race Within The Next 100 Years?". HuffPost. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sotala, Kaj; Yampolskiy, Roman V. (19 December 2014). "Responses to devastating AGI danger: a survey". Physica Scripta. 90 (1 ): 018001. doi:10.1088/ 0031-8949/90/ 1/018001. ISSN 0031-8949. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (First ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. ^ Chow, Andrew R.; Perrigo, Billy (16 February 2023). "The AI Arms Race Is On. Start Worrying". TIME. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Tetlow, Gemma (12 January 2017). "AI arms race threats spiralling out of control, report warns". Financial Times. Archived from the initial on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). "Experts disagree over hazard positioned but expert system can not be overlooked". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 24 December 2023. ^ "Humanity, Security & AI, Oh My! (with Ian Bremmer & Shuman Ghosemajumder)". CAFE. 20 July 2023. Retrieved 15 September 2023. ^ Hamblin, James (9 May 2014). "But What Would 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 stiring worries over AI, warn researchers". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain founder states huge tech is lying about AI extinction danger". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023. ^ Eloundou, Tyna; Manning, Sam; Mishkin, Pamela; Rock, Daniel (17 March 2023). "GPTs are GPTs: An early take a look at the labor market impact potential of big language designs". OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023. ^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). "OpenAI says 80% of workers might see their tasks affected by AI. These are the tasks most affected". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023. ^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk states we need universal standard income due to the fact that 'in the future, manual labor will be an option'". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Sources

UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the initial on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021. Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press. Clocksin, William (August 2003), "Expert system and the future", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007. Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous 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: Expert System and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World, Michael Joseph, ISBN 978-0-7181-2401-4. Goertzel, Ben; Pennachin, Cassio, eds. (2006 ), Artificial General Intelligence (PDF), Springer, ISBN 978-3-5402-3733-4, archived from the original (PDF) on 20 March 2013. Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), "Human-level synthetic general intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a response to Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott's critique of Kurzweil", Expert system, vol. 171, no. 18, Special Review Issue, pp. 1161-1173, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.011, archived from the original on 7 January 2016, recovered 1 April 2009. Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), "Nanotechnology and International Security", Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the initial on 29 May 2011, recovered 7 May 2011. Howe, J. (November 1994), Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University: a Viewpoint, archived from the original on 17 August 2007, obtained 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", Artificial Intelligence: a paper symposium, Science Research Council. Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Expert System: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving (5th ed.), The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., p. 720, ISBN 978-0-8053-4780-7. McCarthy, John (2007b). What is Expert system?. Stanford University. The supreme effort is to make computer system programs that can solve problems and attain goals on the planet in addition to people. 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, obtained 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, obtained 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 original on 12 January 2008, recovered 29 September 2007 Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Rational Approach, New York: Oxford University Press, archived from the original on 25 July 2009, retrieved 6 December 2007 Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003 ), Expert System: A Modern Approach (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-790395-2 Sandberg, Anders; Boström, Nick (2008 ), Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap (PDF), Technical Report # 2008-3, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University, archived (PDF) from the 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 significance and cognition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-1992-1727-4 Wang, Pei; Goertzel, Ben (2007 ). "Introduction: Aspects of Artificial General Intelligence". Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms: Proceedings of the AGI Workshop 2006. IOS Press. pp. 1-16. ISBN 978-1-5860-3758-1. Archived from the initial on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 - through ResearchGate.
Further reading

Aleksander, Igor (1996 ), Impossible Minds, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 978-1-8609-4036-1 Azevedo FA, Carvalho LR, Grinberg LT, Farfel J, et al. (April 2009), "Equal varieties of neuronal and nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled-up primate brain", The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 513 (5 ): 532-541, doi:10.1002/ cne.21974, PMID 19226510, S2CID 5200449, archived from the initial on 18 February 2021, retrieved 4 September 2013 - through ResearchGate Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Expert System Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the original on 23 July 2014, recovered 31 August 2012 Cukier, Kenneth, "Ready for Robots? How to Think of the Future of AI", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 4 (July/August 2019), pp. 192-98. George Dyson, historian of computing, composes (in what may be called "Dyson's Law") that "Any system simple enough to be easy to understand will not be made complex enough to behave smartly, while any system complicated enough to behave smartly will be too made complex to comprehend." (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 initial on 26 July 2010, retrieved 25 July 2010. Gleick, James, "The Fate of Free Choice" (review of Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Choice, Princeton University Press, 2023, 333 pp.), The New York City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. "Agency is what distinguishes us from devices. For biological creatures, factor and purpose come from acting worldwide and experiencing the repercussions. Expert systems - disembodied, strangers to blood, sweat, and tears - have no event for that." (p. 30.). Halal, William E. "TechCast Article Series: The Automation of Thought" (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on 6 June 2013. - Halpern, Sue, "The Coming Tech Autocracy" (review of Verity Harding, AI Needs You: How We Can Change AI's Future and Save Our Own, Princeton University Press, 274 pp.; Gary Marcus, Taming Silicon Valley: How We Can Ensure That AI Works for Us, MIT Press, 235 pp.; Daniela Rus and Gregory Mone, The Mind's Mirror: Risk and Reward in the Age of AI, Norton, 280 pp.; Madhumita Murgia, Code Dependent: Living in the Shadow of AI, Henry Holt, 311 pp.), The New York 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 abundant from AI are going to have the interests of the rest of us close at heart,' ... writes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't count on federal governments driven by project finance contributions [from tech business] to press back.' ... Marcus details the demands that people must make of their federal governments and the tech companies. They consist of transparency on how AI systems work; payment for people if their information [are] used to train LLMs (large language design) s and the right to grant this usage; and the capability to hold tech business accountable for the damages they bring on by removing Section 230, imposing money penalites, and passing more stringent product liability laws ... Marcus likewise suggests ... that a new, AI-specific federal firm, comparable to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, might supply the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law professor Chinmayi Sharma ... suggests ... develop [ing] an expert licensing routine for engineers that would work in a similar method to medical licenses, malpractice fits, and the Hippocratic oath in medication. 'What if, like physicians,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers likewise promised to do no damage?'" (p. 46.). Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), "Abstraction and reformulation in artificial intelligence", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 358, no. 1435, pp. 1197-1204, doi:10.1098/ rstb.2003.1317, PMC 1693218, PMID 12903653. Hughes-Castleberry, Kenna, "A Murder Mystery Puzzle: The literary puzzle Cain's Jawbone, which has stumped people for decades, reveals the limitations of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder mystery competitors has actually revealed that although NLP (natural-language processing) models are capable of extraordinary feats, their abilities are extremely much limited by the amount of context they get. This [...] could cause [difficulties] for scientists who intend to utilize them to do things such as examine ancient languages. In many cases, there are few historical records on long-gone civilizations to serve as training information for such a function." (p. 82.). Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: People now use A.I. to create fake videos indistinguishable from genuine ones. Just how much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we indicate reasonable videos produced using expert system that in fact trick people, then they hardly exist. The phonies aren't deep, and the deeps aren't phony. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in basic, running in our media as counterfeited proof. Their function better resembles that of cartoons, particularly smutty ones." (p. 59.). - Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We must avoid humanizing machine-learning models utilized in clinical research", Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81. Lepore, Jill, "The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a maker a conversation?", The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16. Marcus, Gary, "Artificial Confidence: Even the newest, buzziest systems of synthetic general intelligence are stymmied by the usual issues", Scientific American, vol. 327, no. 4 (October 2022), pp. 42-45. McCarthy, John (October 2007), "From here to human-level AI", Expert System, 171 (18 ): 1174-1182, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.009. McCorduck, Pamela (2004 ), Machines Who Think (2nd ed.), Natick, Massachusetts: A. K. Peters, ISBN 1-5688-1205-1. Moravec, Hans (1976 ), The Role of Raw Power in Intelligence, archived from the initial on 3 March 2016, recovered 29 September 2007. Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1963 ), "GPS: A Program that Simulates Human Thought", in Feigenbaum, E. A.; Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, New York City: McGraw-Hill. Omohundro, Steve (2008 ), The Nature of Self-Improving Expert system, 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 disregard contradictory evidence?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26. Roivainen, Eka, "AI's IQ: ChatGPT aced a [basic intelligence] test but showed that intelligence can not be determined by IQ alone", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 1 (July/August 2023), p. 7. "Despite its high IQ, ChatGPT fails at jobs that need genuine humanlike thinking or an understanding of the physical and social world ... ChatGPT appeared unable to reason logically and attempted to count on its large database of ... realities originated from online texts. " - Scharre, Paul, "Killer Apps: The Real Dangers of an AI Arms Race", Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 3 (May/June 2019), pp. 135-44. "Today's AI technologies are powerful however . Rules-based systems can not handle situations their programmers did not prepare for. Learning systems are limited by the information on which they were trained. AI failures have actually already caused tragedy. Advanced auto-pilot functions in automobiles, although they carry out well in some situations, have actually driven vehicles without cautioning into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked cars. In the incorrect circumstance, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an immediate. When an enemy is trying to manipulate and hack an AI system, the threats are even higher." (p. 140.). Sutherland, J. G. (1990 ), "Holographic Model of Memory, Learning, and Expression", International Journal of Neural Systems, vol. 1-3, pp. 256-267. - Vincent, James, "Horny Robot Baby Voice: suvenir51.ru James Vincent on AI chatbots", London Review of Books, vol. 46, no. 19 (10 October 2024), pp. 29-32." [AI chatbot] programs are made possible by new technologies but count on the timelelss human propensity to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.). Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.