Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of synthetic intelligence (AI) that matches or goes beyond human cognitive capabilities across a large range of cognitive tasks. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is restricted to specific tasks. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that significantly exceeds human cognitive abilities. AGI is considered one of the definitions of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a primary objective of AI research study and of companies such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 survey recognized 72 active AGI research study and development jobs throughout 37 nations. [4]

The timeline for accomplishing AGI stays a topic of continuous argument among researchers and specialists. Since 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or decades; others preserve it might take a century or longer; a minority believe it might never be attained; and another minority claims that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton has revealed issues about the rapid development towards AGI, suggesting it might be attained sooner than many expect. [7]

There is debate on the exact definition of AGI and relating to whether modern big language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early forms of AGI. [8] AGI is a common subject in sci-fi and futures studies. [9] [10]

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

Terminology

AGI is likewise referred to as strong AI, [18] [19] complete AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level smart AI, users.atw.hu or basic smart action. [21]

Some academic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer system programs that experience sentience or awareness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to fix one particular issue but lacks basic cognitive abilities. [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 exact same sense as human beings. [a]

Related concepts consist of synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical type of AGI that is far more usually smart than human beings, [23] while the idea of transformative AI connects to AI having a big effect on society, for instance, comparable to the farming or commercial revolution. [24]

A structure for classifying AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They specify 5 levels of AGI: emerging, skilled, specialist, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a qualified AGI is defined as an AI that exceeds 50% of proficient grownups in a large range of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. a synthetic superintelligence) is likewise specified but with a limit of 100%. They think about big language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics

Various popular definitions of intelligence have actually been proposed. One of the leading proposals is the Turing test. However, nerdgaming.science there are other popular meanings, and some researchers disagree with the more popular approaches. [b]

Intelligence characteristics

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

factor, usage method, solve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty
represent knowledge, including common sense knowledge
strategy
find out
- interact in natural language
- if needed, incorporate these skills in conclusion of any provided objective


Many interdisciplinary methods (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and decision making) consider extra traits such as imagination (the ability to form novel mental images and concepts) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that show much of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated reasoning, choice assistance system, robotic, evolutionary computation, smart representative). There is debate about whether contemporary AI systems possess them to an adequate degree.

Physical characteristics

Other abilities are considered preferable in smart systems, as they might impact intelligence or help in its expression. These include: [30]

- the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on), and
- the capability to act (e.g. relocation and control things, modification place to explore, and so on).


This consists of the ability to identify and react to threat. [31]

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc) and the capability to act (e.g. relocation and control objects, modification location 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 certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language models (LLMs) might currently be or end up being AGI. Even from a less optimistic perspective on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like type; being a silicon-based computational system is sufficient, provided it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This interpretation lines up with the understanding that AGI has actually never ever been proscribed a specific physical personification and hence does not demand a capacity for locomotion or standard "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests implied to confirm human-level AGI have actually been considered, including: [33] [34]

The concept of the test is that the machine needs to attempt and pretend to be a guy, by answering concerns put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is fairly persuading. A considerable portion of a jury, who must not be professional about devices, must 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 solve it, one would require to execute AGI, due to the fact that the service is beyond the abilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]

There are many problems that have been conjectured to need basic intelligence to solve as well as humans. Examples include computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected scenarios while solving any real-world problem. [48] Even a specific task like translation requires a device to check out and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (reason), understand the context (understanding), and faithfully reproduce the author's initial intent (social intelligence). All of these problems need to be solved all at once in order to reach human-level maker performance.

However, much of these tasks can now be performed by modern large language designs. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has reached human-level performance on many standards 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 which it would exist in simply a few decades. [51] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon composed in 1965: "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do." [52]

Their forecasts were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, iuridictum.pecina.cz who embodied what AI researchers thought they could produce by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a consultant [53] on the job of making HAL 9000 as realistic as possible according to the agreement predictions of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of producing 'expert system' will significantly be resolved". [54]

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

However, in the early 1970s, it became obvious that scientists had actually grossly undervalued the problem of the project. Funding agencies ended up being skeptical of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce useful "used AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project revived interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that consisted of AGI objectives like "continue a casual discussion". [58] In response to this and the success of expert systems, both market and government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI stunningly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the objectives of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever satisfied. [60] For the second time in 20 years, AI scientists who forecasted the imminent accomplishment of AGI had been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a track record for making vain pledges. They ended up being unwilling to make forecasts at all [d] and prevented reference of "human level" synthetic intelligence for fear of being labeled "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI achieved business success and academic respectability by concentrating 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 industry, and research in this vein is heavily funded in both academic community and industry. Since 2018 [upgrade], advancement in this field was considered an emerging pattern, and a mature stage was expected to be reached in more than ten years. [64]

At the turn of the century, many mainstream AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI might be developed by combining programs that resolve numerous sub-problems. Hans Moravec composed in 1988:

I am positive that this bottom-up route to artificial intelligence will one day satisfy the traditional top-down path majority way, all set to offer the real-world proficiency and the commonsense understanding that has actually been so frustratingly elusive in thinking programs. Fully smart devices will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven unifying the two efforts. [65]

However, even at the time, this was disputed. For example, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the symbol grounding hypothesis by stating:

The expectation has typically been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way satisfy "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding considerations in this paper are legitimate, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is really just one practical route from sense to symbols: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software application level of a computer system will never be reached by this path (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we must even attempt to reach such a level, considering that it appears getting there would simply total up to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic significances (therefore merely minimizing ourselves to the functional 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 conversation of the implications of totally automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI representative increases "the ability to satisfy goals in a broad range of environments". [68] This type of AGI, identified by the capability to maximise a mathematical definition of intelligence rather than exhibit human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal artificial intelligence. [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 school in AGI was organized in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The first university course was given up 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT provided a course on AGI in 2018, arranged by Lex Fridman and featuring a number of visitor lecturers.

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

Feasibility

Since 2023, the advancement and potential accomplishment of AGI stays a topic of extreme dispute within the AI community. While standard agreement held that AGI was a distant objective, current improvements have actually led some researchers and market figures to claim that early kinds of AGI might already exist. [78] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do". This forecast failed to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen believed that such intelligence is unlikely in the 21st century due to the fact that it would require "unforeseeable and essentially unforeseeable advancements" and a "scientifically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield claimed the gulf between contemporary computing and human-level synthetic intelligence is as large as the gulf between present space flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

An additional challenge is the absence of clearness in specifying what intelligence entails. Does it require consciousness? Must it show the capability to set objectives in addition to pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as preparation, thinking, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence need explicitly duplicating the brain and its particular faculties? Does it require feelings? [81]

Most AI researchers think strong AI can be achieved in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of achieving strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who believe human-level AI will be accomplished, however that today level of progress is such that a date can not accurately be anticipated. [84] AI specialists' views on the expediency of AGI wax and wane. Four surveys conducted in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the median estimate among experts for when they would be 50% confident AGI would show up was 2040 to 2050, depending on the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the professionals, 16.5% responded to with "never" when asked the same concern but with a 90% confidence rather. [85] [86] Further existing AGI progress 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 discovered that "over [a] 60-year timespan there is a strong predisposition towards forecasting the arrival of human-level AI as in between 15 and 25 years from the time the forecast was made". They analyzed 95 predictions made in between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]

In 2023, Microsoft researchers published an in-depth evaluation of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, we believe that it might fairly be considered as an early (yet still insufficient) version of a synthetic general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another research study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 surpasses 99% of people on the Torrance tests of imaginative thinking. [89] [90]

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig wrote in 2023 that a significant level of general intelligence has currently been attained with frontier designs. They wrote that reluctance to this view comes from 4 main reasons: a "healthy hesitation about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or techniques", a "dedication to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "concern about the financial implications of AGI". [91]

2023 likewise marked the emergence of large multimodal designs (large language models efficient in processing or generating numerous techniques such as text, audio, and images). [92]

In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the very first of a series of designs that "spend more time believing before they react". According to Mira Murati, this capability to believe before reacting represents a brand-new, extra paradigm. It enhances design outputs by investing more computing power when producing the answer, whereas the design scaling paradigm improves outputs by increasing the model size, training data and training calculate power. [93] [94]

An OpenAI employee, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the business had actually attained AGI, mentioning, "In my viewpoint, we have actually already achieved AGI and it's even more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "better than any human at any job", it is "much better than the majority of humans at the majority of tasks." He likewise addressed criticisms that big language designs (LLMs) merely follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing procedure to the clinical method of observing, assuming, and verifying. These statements have actually triggered dispute, as they depend on a broad and unconventional definition of AGI-traditionally understood as AI that matches human intelligence across all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models show exceptional adaptability, they might not completely meet this standard. Notably, Kazemi's comments came shortly after OpenAI got rid of "AGI" from the terms of its collaboration with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the company's strategic intents. [95]

Timescales

Progress in expert system has traditionally gone through durations of rapid development separated by durations when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were basic advances in hardware, software application or both to develop space for additional development. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the computer system hardware available in the twentieth century was not sufficient to carry out deep knowing, which requires big numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the intro to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that price quotes of the time required before a really flexible AGI is developed vary from ten years to over a century. As of 2007 [upgrade], the consensus in the AGI research study neighborhood seemed to be that the timeline talked about by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI researchers have given a vast array of opinions on whether progress will be this fast. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions discovered a bias towards anticipating that the start of AGI would take place within 16-26 years for modern-day and historic forecasts alike. That paper has been criticized for how it categorized opinions as expert or non-expert. [104]

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

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

In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language model efficient in carrying out lots of varied tasks without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat article, while there is agreement that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is considered by some to be too advanced to be categorized as a narrow AI system. [108]

In the exact same year, Jason Rohrer utilized his GPT-3 account to develop a chatbot, and supplied a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested for modifications to the chatbot to abide by their safety guidelines; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

In 2022, DeepMind developed Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of performing more than 600 different jobs. [110]

In 2023, Microsoft Research published a research study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, competing that it showed more basic intelligence than previous AI designs and demonstrated human-level efficiency in tasks spanning numerous domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study triggered a debate on whether GPT-4 might be considered an early, incomplete version of artificial general intelligence, stressing the need for more expedition and assessment of such systems. [111]

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

The idea that this stuff could in fact get smarter than people - a couple of people thought that, [...] But a lot of individuals believed it was method off. And I thought it was method 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 actually been quite incredible", which he sees no reason that it would slow down, expecting AGI within a years or perhaps 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 at least as well as people. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI employee, estimated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably plausible". [115]

Whole brain emulation

While the development of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is thought about the most promising course to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can work as an alternative method. With entire brain simulation, a brain design is developed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and after that copying and mimicing it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation model should be adequately devoted to the initial, so that it behaves in virtually the same way as the initial brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a type of brain simulation that is talked about in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research purposes. It has actually been talked about in artificial intelligence research [103] as an approach to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that could provide the essential detailed understanding are enhancing rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] forecasts that a map of adequate quality will become offered on a similar timescale to the computing power needed to replicate it.

Early estimates

For low-level brain simulation, a really effective cluster of computers or GPUs would be required, provided the huge amount of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells has on typical 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other 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, ranging from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A quote of the brain's processing power, based upon a simple switch design for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil looked at various price quotes for the hardware needed to equal the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 computations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "computation" was equivalent to one "floating-point operation" - a measure used to rate existing supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be equivalent to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was achieved in 2022.) He used this figure to forecast the needed hardware would be readily available at some point between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid growth in computer system power at the time of writing continued.

Current research study

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded initiative active from 2013 to 2023, has developed a particularly in-depth and openly available atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, scientists from Duke University performed a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.

Criticisms of simulation-based methods

The synthetic neuron design presumed by Kurzweil and used in many current synthetic neural network implementations is basic compared to biological nerve cells. A brain simulation would likely need to record the detailed cellular behaviour of biological neurons, presently comprehended only in broad summary. The overhead introduced by complete modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (especially on a molecular scale) would need computational powers several orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's price quote. In addition, the estimates do not represent glial cells, which are known to contribute in cognitive processes. [125]

A basic criticism of the simulated brain approach originates from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is a vital element of human intelligence and is essential to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is correct, any completely functional brain design will require to encompass more than simply the neurons (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual embodiment (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an option, but it is unknown 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 space argument. [128] He proposed a distinction between two hypotheses about expert system: [f]

Strong AI hypothesis: A synthetic intelligence system can have "a mind" and "awareness".
Weak AI hypothesis: A synthetic intelligence system can (just) imitate it thinks and has a mind and awareness.


The first one he called "strong" because it makes a stronger declaration: it assumes something unique has occurred to the maker that exceeds those capabilities that we can test. The behaviour of a "weak AI" machine would be exactly similar to a "strong AI" machine, however the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This usage is also typical in academic AI research study and textbooks. [129]

In contrast to Searle and traditional AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil use the term "strong AI" to imply "human level artificial general intelligence". [102] This is not the like Searle's strong AI, unless it is presumed that consciousness is essential for human-level AGI. Academic philosophers such as Searle do not believe that holds true, and to most synthetic intelligence scientists the question is out-of-scope. [130]

Mainstream AI is most interested in how a program behaves. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they don't 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 need to understand if it in fact has mind - indeed, there would be no chance to inform. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is comparable to the declaration "synthetic general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI scientists take the weak AI hypothesis for granted, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for scholastic AI research, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 different things.

Consciousness

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

Sentience (or "phenomenal consciousness"): The ability to "feel" understandings or emotions subjectively, rather than the ability to reason about perceptions. Some theorists, such as David Chalmers, use the term "awareness" to refer specifically to remarkable consciousness, which is approximately comparable to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience arises is understood as the tough issue of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel discussed in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be conscious. If we are not conscious, then it does not feel like anything. Nagel uses 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 awareness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the company's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had attained sentience, though this claim was widely contested by other experts. [135]

Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a different person, specifically to be knowingly familiar with one's own thoughts. This is opposed to simply being the "topic of one's thought"-an operating system or debugger is able to be "aware of itself" (that is, to represent itself in the exact same method it represents everything else)-but this is not what individuals usually mean when they use the term "self-awareness". [g]

These traits have an ethical measurement. AI life would generate issues of welfare and legal protection, similarly to animals. [136] Other elements of awareness associated to cognitive abilities are also appropriate to the concept of AI rights. [137] Finding out how to integrate advanced AI with existing legal and social structures is an emerging issue. [138]

Benefits

AGI might have a wide array of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI might help mitigate various issues in the world such as appetite, hardship and illness. [139]

AGI might improve productivity and performance in a lot of jobs. For instance, in public health, AGI might accelerate medical research study, notably versus cancer. [140] It could look after the elderly, [141] and equalize access to quick, top quality medical diagnostics. It might provide fun, cheap and individualized education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist might end up being outdated if the wealth produced is appropriately rearranged. [141] [142] This likewise raises the concern of the place of human beings in a drastically automated society.

AGI might also assist to make logical decisions, and to expect and prevent catastrophes. It might likewise assist to profit of possibly catastrophic technologies such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while avoiding the associated dangers. [143] If an AGI's primary objective is to prevent existential disasters such as human termination (which could be hard if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being real), [144] it might take measures to considerably reduce the dangers [143] while lessening the effect of these steps on our lifestyle.

Risks

Existential risks

AGI might represent multiple types of existential risk, which are dangers that threaten "the early extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or the long-term and drastic damage of its potential for preferable future development". [145] The threat of human extinction from AGI has actually been the topic of many arguments, but there is also the possibility that the development of AGI would cause a permanently problematic future. Notably, it could be used to spread and protect the set of values of whoever develops it. If humanity still has moral blind areas comparable to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, avoiding ethical progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI might facilitate mass monitoring and brainwashing, which might be used to develop a steady repressive around the world totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is likewise a risk for the makers themselves. If devices that are sentient or otherwise worthy of moral consideration are mass developed in the future, engaging in a civilizational path that indefinitely neglects their welfare and interests could be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering how much AGI could enhance humanity's future and help in reducing other existential threats, Toby Ord calls these existential risks "an argument for continuing with due care", not for "deserting AI". [147]

Risk of loss of control and human termination

The thesis that AI presents an existential danger for humans, which this risk needs more attention, is questionable however has been endorsed in 2023 by many public figures, AI researchers and CEOs of AI companies such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis and Sam Altman. [151] [152]

In 2014, Stephen Hawking criticized widespread indifference:

So, facing possible futures of enormous benefits and threats, the professionals are definitely doing everything possible to guarantee the finest result, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll get here in a few years,' would we simply 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 humankind has often been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The comparison mentions that higher intelligence allowed humankind to dominate gorillas, which are now vulnerable in manner ins which they could not have expected. As a result, the gorilla has actually ended up being an endangered species, 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 control humanity which we need to beware not to anthropomorphize them and interpret their intents as we would for human beings. He stated that people won't be "wise enough to develop super-intelligent machines, yet ridiculously stupid to the point of giving it moronic objectives without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the idea of crucial merging recommends that almost whatever their goals, intelligent agents will have factors to attempt to survive and obtain more power as intermediary actions to attaining these objectives. Which this does not require having feelings. [156]

Many scholars who are worried about existential risk advocate for more research into solving the "control issue" to answer the concern: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers execute to increase the probability that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, instead of damaging, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is made complex by the AI arms race (which might result in a race to the bottom of safety precautions in order to release items before rivals), [159] and making use of AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can pose existential danger also has detractors. Skeptics usually say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI sidetrack from other problems associated with present AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for many individuals outside of the innovation industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are currently perceived as though they were AGI, causing additional misunderstanding and fear. [162]

Skeptics in some cases charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an irrational belief in the possibility of superintelligence changing an irrational belief in an omnipotent God. [163] Some scientists believe that the communication campaigns on AI existential threat by certain AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) may be an at attempt at regulative capture and to inflate interest in their products. [164] [165]

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, along with other market leaders and scientists, issued a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the danger of extinction from AI should be an international top priority together with other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]

Mass unemployment

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

According to Stephen Hawking, the result of automation on the lifestyle will depend on how the wealth will be redistributed: [142]

Everyone can delight in a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or many individuals can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. Up until now, the trend appears to be toward the 2nd choice, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality

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

See also

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities similar to those of the animal or human brain
AI impact
AI security - Research location on making AI safe and beneficial
AI alignment - AI conformance to the intended objective
A.I. Rising - 2018 film directed by Lazar Bodroža
Artificial intelligence
Automated machine knowing - Process of automating the application of artificial intelligence
BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research effort revealed by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research study centre
General game playing - Ability of expert system to play different games
Generative artificial intelligence - AI system capable of generating material in response to prompts
Human Brain Project - Scientific research job
Intelligence amplification - Use of infotech to enhance human intelligence (IA).
Machine ethics - Moral behaviours of man-made makers.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task knowing - Solving several maker discovering jobs at the same time.
Neural scaling law - Statistical law in artificial intelligence.
Outline of expert system - Overview of and topical guide to expert system.
Transhumanism - Philosophical movement.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or form of expert system.
Transfer learning - Machine learning strategy.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competition.
Hardware for expert system - Hardware specifically developed and optimized for artificial intelligence.
Weak expert system - Form of expert system.


Notes

^ a b See below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the scholastic meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the post Chinese room.
^ AI founder John McCarthy writes: "we can not yet identify in basic what type of computational procedures we wish to call smart. " [26] (For a discussion of some definitions of intelligence utilized by artificial intelligence researchers, see viewpoint of expert system.).
^ The Lighthill report particularly criticized AI's "grandiose goals" and led the dismantling of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became determined to money only "mission-oriented direct research, instead of standard undirected research". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy composes "it would be a fantastic relief to the rest of the workers in AI if the innovators of new general formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more safeguarded form than has in some cases been the case." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is utilized. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly correspond to 1014 cps. Moravec talks in regards to MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented.
^ As defined in a standard AI book: "The assertion that devices might potentially act wisely (or, perhaps better, act as if they were smart) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by thinkers, and the assertion that makers that do so are really believing (rather than simulating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is artificial narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is created to carry out a single task.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our objective is to ensure that artificial basic intelligence benefits all of humankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's brand-new goal is developing artificial general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to construct AI that is much better than human-level at all of the human senses.
^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A 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 projects were recognized as being active in 2020.
^ a b c "AI timelines: What do experts in expert system anticipate for the future?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
^ Metz, Cade (15 May 2023). "Some Researchers Say A.I. Is Already Here, Stirring Debate in Tech Circles". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023.
^ "AI leader Geoffrey Hinton gives up Google and warns of risk 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 using it for bad things.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 reveals triggers of AGI.
^ Butler, Octavia E. (1993 ). Parable of the Sower. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4466-7550-5. All that you touch you alter. All that you change 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 genuine risk is not AI itself but the way we deploy it.
^ "Impressed by artificial intelligence? Experts state AGI is following, and it has 'existential' threats". 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 very first superintelligence will be the last invention that humanity requires to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. Mitigating the threat of extinction from AI ought to be a global top priority.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI specialists alert of risk 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 developing machines that can outthink us in basic methods.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not present an existential danger". Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential risk.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the initial on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil explains strong AI as "device intelligence with the complete range of human intelligence.".
^ "The Age of 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 synthetic superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Expert system is transforming our world - it is on all of us to make 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 attaining AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat.
^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of intelligent qualities is based upon the subjects covered by significant AI books, including: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998.
^ Johnson 1987.
^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York City: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body forms the method we think: a brand-new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: The concept of proficiency". 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 occurs when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ "Eugene Goostman is a real boy - the Turing Test states so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ "Scientists dispute 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 identify 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 examination to AP Biology. Here's a list of tough tests 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 suggested testing an AI chatbot's ability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to measure human-like intelligence". Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). "Mustafa Suleyman: My new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Artificial Intelligence" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Expert System (Second ed.). New York: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".).
^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Specifying Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Artificial Intelligence, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 22 May 2013.
^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". Stanford University Human-Centered 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 original on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
^ Simon 1965, p. 96 priced estimate in Crevier 1993, p. 109.
^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the original on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008.
^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), 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 original on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007.
^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). "Behind Artificial Intelligence, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York City Times. Archived from the original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer scientists and software engineers avoided the term synthetic intelligence for worry of being seen as wild-eyed dreamers.
^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26
^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the initial on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20
^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300.
^ Gubrud 1997
^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the original on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ "Who created the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., through 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 season 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 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 limits of device intelligence: Despite progress in maker intelligence, artificial general intelligence is still a significant obstacle". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early explores GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ "Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing "Sparks" of AGI". Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023.
^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). "The Singularity Isn't Near". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Winfield, Alan. "Expert system will not develop into a Frankenstein's 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 expert system bring us paradise or ai-db.science 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