This company has no active jobs

0 Review

Rate This Company ( No reviews yet )

You must be logged in to post a review.

Ddnsfree

(0)

About Us

Artificial General Intelligence

Artificial basic intelligence (AGI) is a kind of artificial intelligence (AI) that matches or exceeds human cognitive abilities throughout a wide variety of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is restricted to specific tasks. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that greatly exceeds human cognitive capabilities. AGI is thought about one of the definitions of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a main goal of AI research study and of companies such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 study recognized 72 active AGI research and development tasks across 37 nations. [4]

The timeline for accomplishing AGI remains a topic of ongoing debate amongst researchers and professionals. As of 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or years; others keep it may take a century or longer; a minority think it may never ever be accomplished; and another minority declares that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has expressed concerns about the quick progress towards AGI, recommending it could be attained sooner than lots of expect. [7]

There is debate on the specific meaning of AGI and concerning whether modern large language designs (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early kinds of AGI. [8] AGI is a common subject in science fiction and futures research studies. [9] [10]

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential threat. [11] [12] [13] Many specialists on AI have actually specified that alleviating the threat of human extinction posed by AGI needs to be a worldwide priority. [14] [15] Others discover the advancement of AGI to be too remote to present such a danger. [16] [17]

Terminology

AGI is likewise called strong AI, [18] [19] full AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level intelligent AI, or general smart action. [21]

Some academic sources schedule the term “strong AI” for computer programs that experience sentience or consciousness. [a] In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to solve one specific issue however does not have general 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 same sense as people. [a]

Related principles include artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical kind of AGI that is much more usually intelligent than humans, [23] while the concept of transformative AI relates to AI having a big effect on society, for example, comparable to the agricultural or commercial revolution. [24]

A structure for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They specify five levels of AGI: emerging, skilled, specialist, akropolistravel.com virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a skilled AGI is specified as an AI that exceeds 50% of experienced grownups in a wide variety of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is likewise specified 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 actually been proposed. Among the leading propositions is the Turing test. However, there are other widely known meanings, and some researchers disagree with the more popular approaches. [b]

Intelligence qualities

Researchers generally hold that intelligence is needed to do all of the following: [27]

factor, usage strategy, solve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty
represent understanding, consisting of good sense understanding
plan
discover
– communicate in natural language
– if necessary, incorporate these abilities in completion of any offered goal

Many interdisciplinary techniques (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) consider additional characteristics such as creativity (the ability to form novel psychological images and concepts) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that show a lot of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated reasoning, choice support group, robot, evolutionary calculation, smart representative). There is dispute about whether modern-day AI systems have them to an adequate degree.

Physical characteristics

Other abilities are considered preferable in intelligent systems, as they might affect intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: [30]

– the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on), and
– the ability to act (e.g. move and manipulate things, modification place to check out, and so on).

This consists of the capability to identify and respond to hazard. [31]

Although the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the ability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate items, change area to check out, and so on) can be preferable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical abilities are not strictly required for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that large language designs (LLMs) may already be or become AGI. Even from a less optimistic viewpoint on LLMs, there is no company requirement for an AGI to have a human-like kind; being a silicon-based computational system is sufficient, provided it can process input (language) from the external world in location of human senses. This interpretation lines up with the understanding that AGI has never been proscribed a specific physical embodiment and therefore does not demand morphomics.science a capacity for locomotion or traditional “eyes and ears”. [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests suggested to confirm human-level AGI have actually been considered, consisting of: [33] [34]

The concept of the test is that the maker needs to attempt and pretend to be a guy, by responding to questions put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is fairly convincing. A considerable portion of a jury, who ought to not be professional about devices, need to be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete problems

A problem is informally called “AI-complete” or “AI-hard” if it is thought that in order to fix it, one would require to execute AGI, because the service is beyond the abilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]

There are numerous issues that have actually been conjectured to need general intelligence to fix along with humans. Examples consist of computer vision, natural language understanding, and handling unforeseen scenarios while resolving any real-world issue. [48] Even a specific task like translation needs a device to read and write in both languages, follow the author’s argument (factor), comprehend the context (knowledge), and faithfully recreate the author’s original intent (social intelligence). All of these problems require to be fixed all at once in order to reach human-level machine performance.

However, a number of these tasks can now be carried out by contemporary large language models. According to Stanford University’s 2024 AI index, AI has actually reached human-level efficiency on many benchmarks for reading comprehension and visual thinking. [49]

History

Classical AI

Modern AI research study started in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI researchers were persuaded that artificial general intelligence was possible and that it would exist in simply a couple of decades. [51] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: “devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do.” [52]

Their forecasts were the motivation for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke’s character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers thought they might develop by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was a specialist [53] on the task of making HAL 9000 as reasonable as possible according to the consensus forecasts of the time. He said in 1967, “Within a generation … the problem of creating ‘synthetic intelligence’ will considerably be resolved”. [54]

Several classical AI jobs, such as Doug Lenat’s Cyc project (that began in 1984), and Allen Newell’s Soar project, were directed at AGI.

However, in the early 1970s, it became obvious that researchers had grossly undervalued the difficulty of the project. Funding companies ended up being hesitant of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce beneficial “applied AI“. [c] In the early 1980s, Japan’s Fifth Generation Computer Project revived interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that included AGI goals like “bring on a table talk”. [58] In response to this and the success of expert systems, both industry and government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, self-confidence in AI spectacularly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never fulfilled. [60] For the 2nd time in 20 years, AI scientists who predicted the imminent accomplishment of AGI had actually been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a credibility for making vain pledges. They ended up being unwilling to make forecasts at all [d] and avoided mention of “human level” expert system for worry of being identified “wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI accomplished business success and academic respectability by focusing on particular sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable results and industrial applications, such as speech acknowledgment and recommendation algorithms. [63] These “applied AI” systems are now utilized extensively throughout the innovation market, and research study in this vein is greatly funded in both academic community and industry. As of 2018 [upgrade], advancement in this field was thought about an emerging trend, and a mature phase was expected to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]

At the millenium, many mainstream AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI could be established by integrating programs that resolve numerous sub-problems. Hans Moravec composed in 1988:

I am confident that this bottom-up path to artificial intelligence will one day satisfy the standard top-down path more than half way, prepared to offer the real-world competence and the commonsense knowledge that has been so frustratingly evasive in reasoning programs. Fully intelligent machines will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven unifying 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 sign grounding hypothesis by specifying:

The expectation has typically been voiced that “top-down” (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way satisfy “bottom-up” (sensory) approaches someplace in between. If the grounding considerations in this paper are valid, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is really just one viable path from sense to symbols: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software level of a computer system will never ever be reached by this path (or vice versa) – nor is it clear why we need to even try to reach such a level, given that it looks as if arriving would simply amount to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic meanings (therefore merely reducing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer system). [66]

Modern artificial general intelligence research

The term “artificial basic intelligence” was utilized as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a discussion of the ramifications of totally automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI agent increases “the capability to please goals in a vast array of environments”. [68] This kind of AGI, characterized by the capability to maximise a mathematical definition of intelligence rather than display human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal expert system. [70]

The term AGI was re-introduced and promoted by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research activity in 2006 was described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as “producing publications and preliminary results”. The first summer season 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 given up 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT presented a course on AGI in 2018, arranged by Lex Fridman and featuring a variety of guest lecturers.

Since 2023 [update], a small number of computer system scientists are active in AGI research study, and lots of contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, significantly more researchers are interested in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the concept of permitting AI to continually learn and innovate like human beings do.

Feasibility

As of 2023, the advancement and potential accomplishment of AGI stays a subject of intense dispute within the AI neighborhood. While conventional agreement held that AGI was a remote goal, current developments have actually led some scientists and industry figures to claim that early forms of AGI might currently exist. [78] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon hypothesized 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 not likely in the 21st century because it would require “unforeseeable and fundamentally unforeseeable advancements” and a “clinically deep understanding of cognition”. [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf in between modern-day computing and human-level artificial intelligence is as wide as the gulf between present area flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A further challenge is the absence of clarity in specifying what intelligence entails. Does it require consciousness? Must it show the ability to set objectives along with pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as planning, thinking, and causal understanding needed? Does intelligence require clearly reproducing the brain and its specific faculties? Does it need emotions? [81]

Most AI scientists believe strong AI can be accomplished in the future, but some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of accomplishing strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who believe human-level AI will be achieved, but that today level of development is such that a date can not precisely be predicted. [84] AI specialists’ views on the feasibility of AGI wax and subside. Four polls performed in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the typical estimate among professionals for when they would be 50% positive AGI would get here was 2040 to 2050, depending on the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the specialists, 16.5% addressed with “never” when asked the exact same question however with a 90% confidence rather. [85] [86] Further present AGI progress considerations can be discovered above Tests for confirming human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute discovered that “over [a] 60-year time frame there is a strong bias towards predicting the arrival of human-level AI as in between 15 and 25 years from the time the prediction was made”. They evaluated 95 predictions made in between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will come about. [87]

In 2023, Microsoft researchers published a detailed examination of GPT-4. They concluded: “Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4’s abilities, our company believe that it might reasonably be considered as an early (yet still incomplete) variation of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system.” [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 surpasses 99% of human beings on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig wrote in 2023 that a considerable level of general intelligence has already been accomplished with frontier designs. They wrote that hesitation to this view originates from four primary reasons: a “healthy skepticism about metrics for AGI”, an “ideological commitment to alternative AI theories or techniques”, a “devotion to human (or biological) exceptionalism”, or a “concern about the economic ramifications of AGI”. [91]

2023 also marked the development of large multimodal models (large language models efficient in processing or generating several techniques such as text, audio, and images). [92]

In 2024, OpenAI launched o1-preview, the very first of a series of models that “invest more time thinking before they respond”. According to Mira Murati, this capability to think before reacting represents a brand-new, extra paradigm. It enhances model outputs by spending more computing power when generating the answer, whereas the model scaling paradigm enhances outputs by increasing the design size, training data and training compute power. [93] [94]

An OpenAI worker, Vahid Kazemi, claimed in 2024 that the company had attained AGI, stating, “In my opinion, we have actually already accomplished AGI and asteroidsathome.net it’s a lot more clear with O1.” Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet “better than any human at any task”, it is “better than a lot of humans at a lot of jobs.” He likewise addressed criticisms that large language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing process to the clinical approach of observing, assuming, and validating. These declarations have stimulated argument, as they count on a broad and non-traditional definition of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI’s models demonstrate exceptional flexibility, they may not fully satisfy this standard. Notably, Kazemi’s remarks came quickly after OpenAI removed “AGI” from the regards to its collaboration with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the business’s tactical intents. [95]

Timescales

Progress in synthetic intelligence has actually historically gone through durations of fast development separated by periods when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were fundamental advances in hardware, software or both to develop space for further development. [82] [98] [99] For example, the computer system hardware available in the twentieth century was not adequate to execute deep learning, which needs big numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that price quotes of the time required before a really flexible AGI is constructed vary from 10 years to over a century. As of 2007 [update], the consensus in the AGI research study community appeared to be that the timeline discussed by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. in between 2015 and 2045) was possible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have actually given a large variety of opinions on whether progress will be this fast. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions discovered a predisposition towards predicting that the start of AGI would occur within 16-26 years for contemporary and historic forecasts alike. That paper has been slammed for how it classified opinions as expert or non-expert. [104]

In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton developed a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competition with a top-5 test error rate of 15.3%, considerably much better than the second-best entry’s rate of 26.3% (the standard technique used a weighted amount of ratings from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered as the preliminary ground-breaker of the present deep knowing wave. [105]

In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu conducted intelligence tests on publicly readily available and easily accessible weak AI such as Google AI, Apple’s Siri, and others. At the maximum, these AIs reached an IQ worth of about 47, which corresponds around to a six-year-old kid in first grade. A grownup comes to about 100 typically. Similar tests were performed in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching an optimum value of 27. [106] [107]

In 2020, OpenAI developed GPT-3, a language design efficient in carrying out many diverse tasks without specific training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat article, while there is agreement that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is thought about by some to be too advanced to be classified as a narrow AI system. [108]

In the very same year, Jason Rohrer used his GPT-3 account to establish a chatbot, and supplied a chatbot-developing platform called “Project December”. OpenAI requested modifications to the chatbot to adhere to their safety guidelines; Rohrer disconnected Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

In 2022, DeepMind established Gato, a “general-purpose” system efficient in performing more than 600 different tasks. [110]

In 2023, Microsoft Research released a study on an early variation of OpenAI’s GPT-4, competing that it displayed more general intelligence than previous AI designs and showed human-level performance in tasks spanning multiple domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study triggered a dispute on whether GPT-4 could be thought about an early, incomplete variation of synthetic basic intelligence, stressing the need for additional exploration and assessment of such systems. [111]

In 2023, the AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton stated that: [112]

The idea that this stuff might in fact get smarter than individuals – a couple of individuals thought that, […] But many people thought it was way off. And I thought it was way off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years and even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly stated that “The progress in the last couple of years has actually been quite amazing”, which he sees no factor why it would slow down, anticipating AGI within a decade and even a couple of 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 a minimum of as well as people. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI employee, estimated AGI by 2027 to be “strikingly possible”. [115]

Whole brain emulation

While the development of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is considered the most promising path to AGI, [116] [117] whole brain emulation can work as an alternative technique. With entire brain simulation, a brain model is developed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and then copying and simulating it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation design should be adequately faithful to the initial, so that it acts in practically the very same method as the initial brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is gone over in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research functions. It has been talked about in expert system research [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that might provide the needed detailed understanding are improving quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] predicts that a map of enough quality will appear on a comparable timescale to the computing power required to imitate it.

Early estimates

For low-level brain simulation, an extremely powerful cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be needed, provided the enormous quantity of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) neurons has on typical 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other nerve cells. The brain of a three-year-old kid has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number decreases with age, supporting by adulthood. Estimates differ 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 an easy switch design for nerve cell activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil looked at various quotes for the hardware required to equal the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 calculations per second (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a “calculation” was equivalent to one “floating-point operation” – a measure utilized to rate existing supercomputers – then 1016 “computations” would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was accomplished in 2022.) He used this figure to predict the required hardware would be offered sometime in between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential growth in computer system power at the time of composing continued.

Current research

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded effort active from 2013 to 2023, has developed a particularly detailed and publicly accessible atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, researchers from Duke University carried out a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.

Criticisms of simulation-based approaches

The artificial neuron design assumed by Kurzweil and utilized in numerous present synthetic neural network applications is simple compared with biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely have to catch the detailed cellular behaviour of biological neurons, presently comprehended just in broad summary. The overhead introduced by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical details of neural behaviour (specifically on a molecular scale) would need computational powers a number of orders of magnitude bigger than Kurzweil’s estimate. In addition, the price quotes do not account for glial cells, which are understood to play a function in cognitive procedures. [125]

A fundamental criticism of the simulated brain technique originates from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is a vital element of human intelligence and is necessary to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is right, any totally practical brain design will require to include 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 unknown whether this would be adequate.

Philosophical point of view

“Strong AI” as specified in viewpoint

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 synthetic intelligence: [f]

Strong AI hypothesis: A synthetic intelligence system can have “a mind” and “consciousness”.
Weak AI hypothesis: A synthetic intelligence system can (only) imitate it thinks and has a mind and awareness.

The first one he called “strong” due to the fact that it makes a more powerful declaration: it presumes something unique has taken place to the maker that exceeds those abilities that we can check. The behaviour of a “weak AI” device would be precisely identical to a “strong AI” device, however the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This use is likewise typical in scholastic AI research study and books. [129]

In contrast to Searle and traditional AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil utilize 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 consciousness is essential for human-level AGI. Academic philosophers such as Searle do not think that is the case, and to most expert system researchers the concern is out-of-scope. [130]

Mainstream AI is most interested in how a program acts. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, “as long as the program works, they do not care if you call it real or a simulation.” [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no requirement to understand if it really has mind – certainly, there would be no chance to tell. For AI research study, Searle’s “weak AI hypothesis” is comparable to the declaration “synthetic basic intelligence is possible”. Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, “most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for granted, and don’t care about the strong AI hypothesis.” [130] Thus, for academic AI research study, “Strong AI” and “AGI” are two different things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have various significances, and some elements play significant roles in science fiction and the ethics of expert system:

Sentience (or “extraordinary awareness”): The capability to “feel” understandings or emotions subjectively, instead of the capability to reason about understandings. Some thinkers, such as David Chalmers, use the term “awareness” to refer specifically to remarkable awareness, which is approximately comparable to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience arises is referred to as the tough issue of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel discussed in 1974 that it “seems like” something to be mindful. If we are not mindful, then it doesn’t seem like anything. Nagel utilizes the example of a bat: we can smartly 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 consciousness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer declared that the company’s AI chatbot, LaMDA, had accomplished sentience, though this claim was widely contested by other specialists. [135]

Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a different person, especially to be knowingly familiar with one’s own ideas. This is opposed to merely being the “topic of one’s believed”-an operating system or debugger is able to be “mindful of itself” (that is, to represent itself in the same method it represents everything else)-however this is not what individuals typically imply when they use the term “self-awareness”. [g]

These traits have an ethical measurement. AI life would generate concerns of welfare and legal security, likewise to animals. [136] Other elements of awareness related to cognitive abilities are likewise pertinent to the concept of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to integrate innovative AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emerging problem. [138]

Benefits

AGI might have a wide range of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI could help alleviate different issues in the world such as cravings, poverty and health problems. [139]

AGI might enhance productivity and efficiency in many jobs. For example, in public health, AGI could accelerate medical research study, significantly against cancer. [140] It could look after the elderly, [141] and equalize access to rapid, premium medical diagnostics. It might offer fun, cheap and individualized education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist might become outdated if the wealth produced is correctly redistributed. [141] [142] This also raises the question of the location of humans in a significantly automated society.

AGI could likewise assist to make logical decisions, and to prepare for and avoid disasters. It might likewise assist to profit of possibly catastrophic innovations such as nanotechnology or environment engineering, while avoiding the associated threats. [143] If an AGI’s main goal is to prevent existential catastrophes such as human termination (which could be challenging if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be real), [144] it could take steps to drastically minimize the dangers [143] while decreasing the impact of these procedures on our lifestyle.

Risks

Existential dangers

AGI might represent several types of existential risk, which are dangers that threaten “the early extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or the irreversible and extreme damage of its capacity for preferable future advancement”. [145] The risk of human termination from AGI has actually been the subject of lots of disputes, but there is also the possibility that the advancement of AGI would cause a permanently problematic future. Notably, it might be utilized to spread out and protect the set of worths of whoever develops it. If humankind still has ethical blind spots comparable to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, preventing moral development. [146] Furthermore, AGI could assist in mass surveillance and indoctrination, which might be utilized to create a stable repressive worldwide totalitarian regime. [147] [148] There is likewise a danger for the makers themselves. If machines that are sentient or otherwise worthy of ethical consideration are mass created in the future, engaging in a civilizational path that indefinitely neglects their welfare and interests might be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering how much AGI might improve humanity’s future and help in reducing other existential dangers, Toby Ord calls these existential risks “an argument for continuing with due caution”, not for “deserting AI“. [147]

Risk of loss of control and human extinction

The thesis that AI postures an existential risk for humans, which this danger requires more attention, is questionable but has actually been backed in 2023 by numerous 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 extensive indifference:

So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are certainly doing whatever possible to ensure the very best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message stating, ‘We’ll get here in a couple of decades,’ would we just respond, ‘OK, call us when you get here-we’ll leave the lights on?’ Probably not-but this is more or less what is occurring with AI. [153]

The prospective fate of mankind has actually sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast specifies that greater intelligence permitted mankind to dominate gorillas, which are now vulnerable in manner ins which they might not have anticipated. As a result, the gorilla has ended up being a threatened species, not out of malice, but just as a collateral damage from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun considers that AGIs will have no desire to dominate humankind and that we need to be careful not to anthropomorphize them and interpret their intents as we would for people. He said that individuals will not be “clever adequate to develop super-intelligent machines, yet extremely dumb to the point of offering it moronic goals without any safeguards”. [155] On the other side, the principle of instrumental merging suggests that almost whatever their objectives, smart representatives will have factors to try to survive and get more power as intermediary actions to achieving these goals. And that this does not require having feelings. [156]

Many scholars who are concerned about existential danger advocate for more research into fixing the “control problem” to respond to the question: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers execute to maximise the possibility that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, rather than devastating, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is complicated by the AI arms race (which could cause a race to the bottom of safety precautions in order to release items before competitors), [159] and making use of AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can present existential threat also has critics. Skeptics normally say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI sidetrack from other concerns connected to existing AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for lots of people beyond the technology industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are currently perceived as though they were AGI, causing additional misunderstanding and worry. [162]

Skeptics often charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an illogical belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an unreasonable belief in an omnipotent God. [163] Some researchers believe that the interaction campaigns on AI existential threat by particular AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might be an at attempt at regulatory capture and to pump up interest in their products. [164] [165]

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, along with other industry leaders and researchers, released a joint declaration asserting that “Mitigating the threat of termination from AI ought to be a worldwide priority along with 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 jobs impacted by the intro of LLMs, while around 19% of workers might see at least 50% of their jobs impacted”. [166] [167] They think about workplace employees to be the most exposed, for instance mathematicians, accounting professionals or web designers. [167] AGI could have a much better autonomy, ability to make decisions, to user interface with other computer system tools, however likewise to control robotized bodies.

According to Stephen Hawking, the outcome of automation on the quality of life will depend upon how the wealth will be redistributed: [142]

Everyone can delight in a life of glamorous leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or the majority of people can wind up badly poor if the machine-owners effectively lobby against wealth redistribution. Up until now, the pattern appears to be towards the second option, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality

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

See also

Artificial brain – Software and hardware with cognitive capabilities similar to those of the animal or human brain
AI result
AI safety – Research location on making AI safe and useful
AI alignment – AI conformance to the designated goal
A.I. Rising – 2018 film directed by Lazar Bodroža
Expert system
Automated maker learning – Process of automating the application of device knowing
BRAIN Initiative – Collaborative public-private research study initiative announced by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute – Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research study centre
General video game playing – Ability of expert system to play different games
Generative expert system – AI system capable of generating material in action to prompts
Human Brain Project – Scientific research study project
Intelligence amplification – Use of infotech to enhance human intelligence (IA).
Machine ethics – Moral behaviours of manufactured machines.
Moravec’s paradox.
Multi-task learning – Solving numerous maker finding out tasks at the exact same time.
Neural scaling law – Statistical law in device knowing.
Outline of expert system – Overview of and topical guide to expert system.
Transhumanism – Philosophical movement.
Synthetic intelligence – Alternate term for or type of expert system.
Transfer knowing – Artificial intelligence technique.
Loebner Prize – Annual AI competitors.
Hardware for expert system – Hardware specially developed and optimized for expert system.
Weak synthetic 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 post Chinese space.
^ AI creator John McCarthy writes: “we can not yet identify in general what sort of computational treatments we wish to call intelligent. ” [26] (For a conversation of some definitions of intelligence used by expert system researchers, see viewpoint of artificial intelligence.).
^ The Lighthill report particularly slammed AI‘s “grand goals” and led the taking apart of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became figured out to fund only “mission-oriented direct research study, rather than basic undirected research study”. [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy writes “it would be an excellent relief to the rest of the workers in AI if the developers of new general formalisms would express their hopes in a more safeguarded type than has actually in some cases held true.” [61] ^ In “Mind Children” [122] 1015 cps is used. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would approximately correspond to 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not “cps”, which is a non-standard term Kurzweil introduced.
^ As specified in a standard AI book: “The assertion that machines could perhaps act wisely (or, possibly much better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the ‘weak AI‘ hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that devices that do so are in fact believing (as opposed to mimicing thinking) is called the ‘strong AI‘ hypothesis.” [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). “What is synthetic narrow intelligence (ANI)?”. VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is created to perform a single task.
^ “OpenAI Charter”. OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to make sure that artificial basic intelligence advantages all of humankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). “Mark Zuckerberg’s new objective is developing synthetic general intelligence”. The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to develop AI that is better than human-level at all of the human senses.
^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D jobs were determined as being active in 2020.
^ a b c “AI timelines: What do professionals in synthetic intelligence anticipate for the future?”. Our World in Data. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
^ Metz, Cade (15 May 2023). “Some Researchers Say A.I. Is Already Here, Stirring Debate in Tech Circles”. The New York City Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023.
^ “AI leader Geoffrey Hinton quits Google and warns of danger ahead”. The New York Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is difficult to see how you can avoid 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 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 Artificial Intelligence”. The New York City Times. The real threat is not AI itself but the way we release it.
^ “Impressed by synthetic intelligence? Experts say AGI is following, and it has ‘existential’ risks”. ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might present existential dangers to humanity.
^ 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 requires 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 global top priority.
^ “Statement on AI Risk”. Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts alert of risk of extinction from AI.
^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). “Are AI‘s Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?”. The New York City Times. We are far from developing makers that can outthink us in general methods.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). “AGI does not present an existential threat”. Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential danger.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), “Long Live AI“, Forbes, archived from the initial on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil explains strong AI as “machine intelligence with the complete variety of human intelligence.”.
^ “The Age of Artificial Intelligence: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013”. Archived from the initial on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they 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 changing our world – it is on everyone to make sure 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 characteristics is based upon the subjects covered by major AI books, including: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998.
^ Johnson 1987.
^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body shapes the way we think: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). “Motivation reassessed: The idea of proficiency”. Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). “Motivation reassessed: The idea of proficiency”. Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). “What is AGI?”. Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the initial on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
^ “What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence”. Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the initial on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). “AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for ‘intelligence’. What 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 states so”. The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ “Scientists contest 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 differentiate GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test”. arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC]
^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). “AI models like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing whatever from the bar exam to AP Biology. Here’s a list of difficult examinations both AI versions have actually passed”. Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). “6 Jobs Artificial Intelligence Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Capitalize on It”. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). “The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a ‘Turing Olympics'”. Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). “Turing Test is undependable. The Winograd Schema is obsolete. Coffee is the answer”. Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). “DeepMind’s co-founder recommended 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 new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million”. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). “Expert System” (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Expert System (Second ed.). New York: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on “AI-Complete Tasks”.).
^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). “Turing Test as a Defining Feature of AI-Completeness” (PDF). Expert System, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 22 May 2013.
^ “AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts”. Stanford University Human-Centered Expert System. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50.
^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). “Artificial Intelligence, Business and Civilization – Our Fate Made in Machines”. Archived from the initial on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
^ Simon 1965, p. 96 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109.
^ “Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky”. Archived from the initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008.
^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), estimated in Crevier (1993, p. 109).
^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994.
^ a b NRC 1999, “Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment”.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22.
^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see likewise Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212.
^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). “Reply to Lighthill”. Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007.
^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). “Behind Expert system, a Squadron of Bright Real People”. The New York City Times. Archived from the original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system scientists and software application engineers avoided the term artificial intelligence for fear of being considered as wild-eyed dreamers.
^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26
^ “Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle”. Gartner Reports. Archived from the 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 on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Technology an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the initial on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ “Who coined the term “AGI”?”. goertzel.org. Archived from the initial on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., by means of Life 3.0: ‘The term “AGI” was popularized by … Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel’
^ Wang & Goertzel 2007
^ “First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summertime school: June 22 – July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009”. Archived from the original on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ “Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 – пролетен триместър” [Elective courses 2009/2010 – spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ “Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 – зимен триместър” [Elective courses 2010/2011 – winter season trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). “The limitations of device intelligence: Despite progress in device intelligence, artificial 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 explores GPT-4”. arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ “Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing “Sparks” of AGI”. Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023.
^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). “The Singularity Isn’t Near”. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Winfield, Alan. “Artificial intelligence will not develop into a Frankenstein’s beast”. 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 expert system will not be realized”. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1 ): 1-9. doi:10.1057/ s41599-020-0494-4. hdl:11250/ 2726984. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 219710554.
^ McCarthy 2007b.
^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (23 November 2015). “The Doomsday Invention: Will synthetic intelligence bring us paradise or destruction?”. The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future progress in expert system: A study of professional opinion. In Fundamental concerns of artificial intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.
^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. “How We’re Predicting AI-or Failing To.” In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, edited by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia
^ “Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows ‘Sparks’ of General Intelligence”. 24 March 2023.
^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). “AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test”. Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). “The creativity of machines: AI takes the Torrance Test”. Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185.
^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). “Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here”. Noema.
^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). “Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024”. Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
^ “Introducing OpenAI o1-preview”. OpenAI. 12 September 2024.
^ Knight, Will. “OpenAI Announces a 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 passfun.awardspace.us 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 general intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture”. Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the original on 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
^ Pandey, Mohit; Fernandez, Michael; Gentile, Francesco; Isayev, Olexandr; Tropsha, Alexander; Stern, Abraham C.; Cherkasov, Artem (March 2022). “The transformational role of GPU computing and deep knowing in drug discovery”. Nature Machine Intelligence. 4 (3 ): 211-221. doi:10.1038/ s42256-022-00463-x. ISSN 2522-5839. S2CID 252081559.
^ Goertzel & Pennachin 2006.
^ a b c (Kurzweil 2005, p. 260).
^ a b c Goertzel 2007.
^ Grace, Katja (2016 ). “Error in Armstrong and Sotala 2012”. AI Impacts (blog site). Archived from the initial on 4 December 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2020.
^ a b Butz, Martin V. (1 March 2021). “Towards Strong AI“. KI – Künstliche Intelligenz. 35 (1 ): 91-101. doi:10.1007/ s13218-021-00705-x. ISSN 1610-1987. S2CID 256065190.
^ Liu, Feng; Shi, Yong; Liu, Ying (2017 ). “Intelligence Quotient and Intelligence Grade of Expert System”. Annals of Data Science. 4 (2 ): 179-191. arXiv:1709.10242. doi:10.1007/ s40745-017-0109-0. S2CID 37900130.
^ Brien, Jörn (5 October 2017). “Google-KI doppelt so schlau wie Siri” [Google AI is twice as 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 entering 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 declare 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 very first example of an AGI system? This is arguable, however the agreement is that it is not AGI. … If absolutely nothing else, GPT-3 informs us there is a middle ground between narrow and basic AI.
^ Quach, Katyanna. “A designer constructed an AI chatbot utilizing GPT-3 that helped a guy speak once again to his late fiancée. OpenAI shut it down”. The Register. Archived from the initial on 16 October 2021. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
^ Wiggers, Kyle (13 May 2022), “DeepMind’s brand-new AI can carry out over 600 tasks, from playing video games to managing robotics”, TechCrunch, archived from the initial on 16 June 2022, retrieved 12 June 2022.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (22 March 2023). “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs GPT-4”. arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ Metz, Cade (1 May 2023). “‘ The Godfather of A.I.‘ Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead”. The New York City Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ Bove, Tristan. “A.I. could equal human intelligence in ‘just a couple of years,’ states CEO of Google’s main A.I. research study laboratory”. Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). “Nvidia CEO says AI might pass human tests in five years”. Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. “SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead”.
^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). “Why everyone seems to disagree on how to specify Artificial General Intelligence”. Fast Company.
^ Nosta, John (5 January 2024). “The Accelerating Path to Artificial General Intelligence”. Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 March 2024.
^ Hickey, Alex. “Whole Brain Emulation: A 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 original on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
^ de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser 2008. A large range of views in current research, all of which need grounding to some degree
^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). “How uploading our minds to a computer system 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 quote in “AITopics”),.
Will Biological Computers Enable Artificially Intelligent Machines to Become Persons? Archived 13 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Anthony Tongen.

^ a b c Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 947.
^ though see Explainable artificial intelligence for interest by the field about why a program behaves the method it does.
^ Chalmers, David J. (9 August 2023). “Could a Large Language Model Be Conscious?”. Boston Review.
^ Seth, Anil. “Consciousness”. New Scientist. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Nagel 1974.
^ “The Google engineer who thinks the business’s AI has come to life”. The Washington Post. 11 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). “AI Should Be Terrified of Humans”. TIME. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Nosta, John (18 December 2023). “Should Expert System Have Rights?”. Psychology Today. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Akst, Daniel (10 April 2023). “Should Robots With Expert System Have Moral or Legal Rights?”. The Wall Street Journal.
^ “Artificial General Intelligence – Do [es] the cost outweigh benefits?”. 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ “How we can 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 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, 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 development is making it likelier than ever that people will damage ourselves”. Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). “Climate alter an ‘existential security risk’ to Australia, Senate query says”. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023.
^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6.
^ a b Ord, Toby (2020 ). “Chapter 5: Future Risks, Unaligned Artificial Intelligence”. The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9.
^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). “OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious”. Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). “Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge”. Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023.
^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). “AI Should Be Terrified of Humans”. TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). “A.I. Poses ‘Risk of Extinction,’ Industry Leaders Warn”. The New York 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 original 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 dangers of strong AI“. The remarkable Facebook argument between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the dangers of strong AI (in French). Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ “Will Expert System Doom The Human Race Within The Next 100 Years?”. HuffPost. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sotala, Kaj; Yampolskiy, Roman V. (19 December 2014). “Responses to catastrophic AGI 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 risks spiralling out of control, report cautions”. Financial Times. Archived from the initial on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). “Experts disagree over threat posed however 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 original on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
^ Titcomb, James (30 October 2023). “Big Tech is stiring fears over AI, alert researchers”. The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). “Google Brain founder states big tech is lying about AI extinction risk”. 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 effect capacity of big language models”. OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). “OpenAI says 80% of workers could see their tasks impacted by AI. These are the tasks most affected”. euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). “Elon Musk states we require universal fundamental income since ‘in the future, physical work 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 original on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021.
Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press.
Clocksin, William (August 2003), “Expert system and the future”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007.
Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous Look For Expert System. New York, NY: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-02997-3.
Darrach, Brad (20 November 1970), “Meet Shakey, the First Electronic Person”, Life Magazine, pp. 58-68.
Drachman, D. (2005 ), “Do we have brain to spare?”, Neurology, 64 (12 ): 2004-2005, doi:10.1212/ 01. WNL.0000166914.38327. BB, PMID 15985565, S2CID 38482114.
Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983 ), The Fifth Generation: Expert System and Japan’s Computer Challenge to the World, Michael Joseph, ISBN 978-0-7181-2401-4.
Goertzel, Ben; Pennachin, Cassio, eds. (2006 ), Artificial General Intelligence (PDF), Springer, ISBN 978-3-5402-3733-4, archived from the original (PDF) on 20 March 2013.
Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), “Human-level synthetic general intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a reaction to Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott’s critique of Kurzweil”, Expert system, vol. 171, no. 18, Special Review Issue, pp. 1161-1173, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.011, archived from the initial on 7 January 2016, obtained 1 April 2009.
Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), “Nanotechnology and International Security”, Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the original on 29 May 2011, obtained 7 May 2011.
Howe, J. (November 1994), Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University: a Point of view, archived from the initial 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 ), “Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey”, Artificial Intelligence: a paper seminar, Science Research Council.
Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Expert System: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving (fifth ed.), The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., p. 720, ISBN 978-0-8053-4780-7.
McCarthy, John (2007b). What is Artificial Intelligence?. Stanford University. The ultimate effort is to make computer programs that can resolve problems and attain goals in the world as well as people.
Moravec, Hans (1988 ), Mind Children, Harvard University Press
Moravec, Hans (1998 ), “When will hardware match the human brain?”, Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 1, archived from the 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 initial on 16 October 2011, retrieved 7 November 2009
Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1976 ). “Computer Technology as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search”. Communications of the ACM. 19 (3 ): 113-126. doi:10.1145/ 360018.360022.
Nilsson, Nils (1998 ), Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, ISBN 978-1-5586-0467-4
NRC (1999 ), “Developments in 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 Logical Approach, New York: Oxford University Press, archived from the original on 25 July 2009, obtained 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 initial on 25 March 2020, recovered 5 April 2009
Searle, John (1980 ), “Minds, Brains and Programs” (PDF), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (3 ): 417-457, doi:10.1017/ S0140525X00005756, S2CID 55303721, archived (PDF) from the initial on 17 March 2019, retrieved 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 initial on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 – via ResearchGate.

This company has no active jobs

0 Review

Rate This Company ( No reviews yet )

Ddnsfree

Company Information

About Us

Artificial General Intelligence

For Candidates

For Employers