Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a kind of artificial intelligence (AI) that matches or surpasses human cognitive capabilities throughout a vast array of cognitive tasks. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to particular jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, describes AGI that significantly surpasses human cognitive abilities. AGI is thought about among the definitions of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a primary goal of AI research and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 study determined 72 active AGI research and development projects throughout 37 nations. [4]

The timeline for achieving AGI stays a subject of continuous argument among researchers and experts. As of 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or years; others maintain it might take a century or longer; a minority believe it might never ever be attained; and another minority declares that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has revealed issues about the fast development towards AGI, recommending it could be attained earlier than lots of anticipate. [7]

There is dispute on the exact meaning of AGI and relating to whether modern-day big language designs (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early kinds of AGI. [8] AGI is a typical subject in science fiction and futures research studies. [9] [10]

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential danger. [11] [12] [13] Many specialists on AI have actually mentioned that mitigating the threat of human termination positioned by AGI needs to be a global concern. [14] [15] Others discover the development of AGI to be too remote to provide such a danger. [16] [17]

Terminology

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

Some scholastic sources book the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience sentience or consciousness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to resolve one particular problem however lacks general cognitive capabilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources utilize "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the exact same sense as human beings. [a]

Related concepts consist of artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical type of AGI that is a lot more normally smart than humans, [23] while the idea of transformative AI associates with AI having a large effect on society, for example, similar to the agricultural or commercial revolution. [24]

A structure for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They specify five levels of AGI: emerging, proficient, expert, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a competent AGI is defined as an AI that outperforms 50% of proficient grownups in a vast array of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is similarly specified however with a limit of 100%. They think about large language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics

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

Intelligence characteristics

Researchers normally hold that intelligence is required to do all of the following: [27]

reason, use method, solve puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability
represent understanding, including common sense knowledge
strategy
find out
- communicate in natural language
- if required, incorporate these skills in completion of any given goal


Many interdisciplinary techniques (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and decision making) think about extra traits such as imagination (the ability to form unique mental images and ideas) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that exhibit a lot of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated reasoning, decision assistance system, robotic, evolutionary calculation, smart representative). There is dispute about whether modern AI systems have them to a sufficient degree.

Physical traits

Other abilities are considered preferable in intelligent systems, as they may impact intelligence or help in its expression. These consist of: [30]

- the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and
- the ability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate items, change location to explore, etc).


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

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc) and the capability to act (e.g. move and manipulate things, change location to explore, and so on) can be desirable 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 designs (LLMs) may already be or end up being AGI. Even from a less optimistic viewpoint on LLMs, there is no company requirement for an AGI to have a human-like type; being a silicon-based computational system is sufficient, supplied 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 been proscribed a particular physical embodiment and thus does not require a capability for mobility or conventional "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests indicated to confirm human-level AGI have been thought about, including: [33] [34]

The concept of the test is that the device needs to attempt and pretend to be a male, by addressing questions put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is reasonably convincing. A considerable part of a jury, who should not be expert about machines, should 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, since the option is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]

There are numerous issues that have actually been conjectured to require basic intelligence to solve in addition to human beings. Examples include computer system vision, natural language understanding, and handling unanticipated scenarios while solving any real-world issue. [48] Even a particular job like translation needs a maker to check out and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (reason), comprehend the context (understanding), and consistently replicate the author's initial intent (social intelligence). All of these problems require to be resolved simultaneously in order to reach human-level machine performance.

However, much of these jobs can now be carried out by modern big language designs. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has reached human-level performance on lots of benchmarks for checking out comprehension and visual reasoning. [49]

History

Classical AI

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

Their predictions were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers thought they might create by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a consultant [53] on the job of making HAL 9000 as reasonable as possible according to the agreement forecasts of the time. He stated in 1967, "Within a generation ... the issue of developing 'synthetic intelligence' will substantially be resolved". [54]

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

However, in the early 1970s, it became apparent that researchers had grossly undervalued the trouble of the project. Funding companies became skeptical of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce helpful "applied 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 conversation". [58] In reaction to this and the success of specialist systems, both industry and federal government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, self-confidence in AI stunningly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever satisfied. [60] For the second time in twenty years, AI scientists who predicted the impending accomplishment of AGI had been mistaken. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a credibility for making vain guarantees. They ended up being unwilling to make forecasts at all [d] and avoided reference of "human level" synthetic intelligence for worry of being labeled "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI attained business success and scholastic respectability by concentrating on specific sub-problems where AI can produce proven results and business applications, such as speech recognition and suggestion algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now used extensively throughout the technology industry, and research in this vein is heavily funded in both academia and industry. As of 2018 [upgrade], advancement in this field was considered an emerging trend, and a fully grown phase was expected to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]

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

I am positive that this bottom-up route to synthetic intelligence will one day satisfy the conventional top-down route over half method, ready to provide the real-world skills and the commonsense understanding that has been so frustratingly evasive in thinking programs. Fully smart machines will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven unifying the two efforts. [65]

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

The expectation has often been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way meet "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches someplace in between. If the grounding considerations in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is actually only one viable path from sense to signs: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software level of a computer system will never be reached by this route (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we should even attempt to reach such a level, because it appears arriving would simply amount to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic significances (therefore simply minimizing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer system). [66]

Modern synthetic general intelligence research

The term "synthetic basic intelligence" was used 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 agent maximises "the ability to satisfy goals in a wide variety of environments". [68] This type of AGI, defined by the capability to increase a mathematical definition of intelligence instead of display human-like behaviour, [69] was likewise called universal expert system. [70]

The term AGI was re-introduced and popularized by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research study activity in 2006 was described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and preliminary outcomes". The very first summer season school in AGI was organized 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 provided a course on AGI in 2018, arranged by Lex Fridman and featuring a variety of visitor lecturers.

As of 2023 [upgrade], a small number of computer system researchers are active in AGI research, and lots of add to a series of AGI conferences. However, progressively more scientists are interested in open-ended knowing, [76] [77] which is the concept of permitting AI to constantly discover and innovate like people do.

Feasibility

Since 2023, the development and possible achievement of AGI stays a topic of intense dispute within the AI neighborhood. While standard agreement held that AGI was a remote goal, current developments have actually led some researchers and industry figures to declare that early forms of AGI may currently exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do". This forecast failed to come true. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen believed that such intelligence is unlikely in the 21st century because it would require "unforeseeable and fundamentally unforeseeable breakthroughs" and a "clinically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield claimed the gulf between modern computing and human-level expert system is as large as the gulf in between existing space flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A more challenge is the lack of clearness in specifying what intelligence involves. Does it require consciousness? Must it show the ability to set goals in addition to pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as planning, reasoning, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence need explicitly replicating the brain and its particular professors? Does it require feelings? [81]

Most AI scientists think strong AI can be accomplished in the future, but some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of achieving strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who believe human-level AI will be accomplished, but that today level of development is such that a date can not accurately be anticipated. [84] AI experts' views on the expediency of AGI wax and subside. Four surveys carried out in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the average price quote amongst 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 experts, 16.5% responded to with "never" when asked the same concern however with a 90% self-confidence instead. [85] [86] Further current AGI progress considerations can be discovered 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 bias towards forecasting the arrival of human-level AI as in between 15 and wiki.myamens.com 25 years from the time the forecast 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 released an in-depth evaluation of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, our company believe that it might fairly be deemed an early (yet still insufficient) version of a synthetic basic intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outshines 99% of humans on the Torrance tests of creative thinking. [89] [90]

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

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

In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the first of a series of models that "spend more time thinking before they react". According to Mira Murati, this capability to believe before reacting represents a new, additional paradigm. It improves model outputs by investing more computing power when generating the response, whereas the design scaling paradigm enhances outputs by increasing the model size, training data and training compute power. [93] [94]

An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the business had actually attained AGI, specifying, "In my opinion, we have actually already attained AGI and it's even 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 human beings at a lot of jobs." He also resolved criticisms that big language models (LLMs) merely follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing procedure to the scientific approach of observing, assuming, and confirming. These declarations have actually sparked argument, as they rely on a broad and unconventional meaning of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models show impressive flexibility, they may not fully fulfill this standard. Notably, Kazemi's remarks came shortly after OpenAI got rid of "AGI" from the regards to its partnership with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the company's strategic intents. [95]

Timescales

Progress in artificial intelligence has actually historically gone through durations of rapid development separated by periods when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were basic advances in hardware, software or both to create space for more development. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the hardware available in the twentieth century was not adequate to implement deep knowing, which requires big numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the intro to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel says that quotes of the time needed before a truly flexible AGI is built vary from 10 years to over a century. As of 2007 [upgrade], the agreement in the AGI research community seemed to be that the timeline gone over by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. in between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have given a vast array of viewpoints on whether development will be this fast. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such viewpoints found a predisposition towards forecasting that the onset of AGI would take place within 16-26 years for contemporary and historic predictions alike. That paper has been slammed for how it categorized opinions as specialist or non-expert. [104]

In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton established a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competition with a top-5 test mistake rate of 15.3%, considerably much better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the traditional approach utilized a weighted amount of scores from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was concerned as the initial ground-breaker of the existing deep knowing wave. [105]

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

In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language design capable of carrying out lots of varied jobs without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat short article, while there is consensus that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is thought about 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 offered a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI asked for modifications to the chatbot to adhere to their safety standards; Rohrer disconnected Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

In 2022, DeepMind established Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of carrying out more than 600 various tasks. [110]

In 2023, Microsoft Research released a study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it exhibited more basic intelligence than previous AI models and showed human-level performance in jobs spanning multiple domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research triggered a dispute on whether GPT-4 could be considered an early, incomplete version of artificial general intelligence, emphasizing the need for more exploration and assessment of such systems. [111]

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

The concept that this stuff might in fact get smarter than people - a couple of individuals thought that, [...] But the majority of people believed it was way off. And I believed it was method off. I believed it was 30 to 50 years or even longer away. Obviously, I no longer believe that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis likewise said that "The progress in the last couple of years has actually been pretty amazing", which he sees no reason that it would slow down, expecting AGI within a decade or even a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, mentioned his expectation that within 5 years, AI would can passing any test at least as well as humans. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI worker, approximated AGI by 2027 to be "strikingly possible". [115]

Whole brain emulation

While the development of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is considered the most appealing path to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can function as an alternative method. With whole brain simulation, a brain model is built by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and after that copying and imitating it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation model need to be adequately loyal to the initial, so that it acts in virtually the exact same method as the initial brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is discussed in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research purposes. It has actually been talked about in artificial intelligence research [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that might deliver the needed comprehensive understanding are enhancing rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] anticipates that a map of enough quality will appear on a comparable timescale to the computing power needed to replicate it.

Early approximates

For low-level brain simulation, a very effective cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be needed, given the huge amount of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells has on average 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other neurons. The brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number decreases with age, stabilizing by their adult years. Estimates vary 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 model for nerve cell activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil looked at numerous price quotes for the hardware required to equate to the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 computations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a "calculation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a step used to rate present supercomputers - then 1016 "calculations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was achieved in 2022.) He utilized this figure to anticipate the necessary hardware would be available sometime between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential development in computer system power at the time of composing continued.

Current research

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded initiative active from 2013 to 2023, has established a particularly in-depth and openly 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 synthetic neuron model presumed by Kurzweil and utilized in lots of existing artificial neural network implementations is simple compared to biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely need to catch the comprehensive cellular behaviour of biological neurons, currently comprehended only in broad summary. The overhead presented by complete modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (especially on a molecular scale) would require computational powers numerous orders of magnitude bigger than Kurzweil's estimate. In addition, the price quotes do not account for glial cells, which are understood to contribute in cognitive procedures. [125]

An essential criticism of the simulated brain approach obtains from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is an essential element of human intelligence and is needed to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is appropriate, any fully practical brain design will require to encompass more than just the neurons (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as a choice, but it is unknown whether this would suffice.

Philosophical viewpoint

"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 difference in between 2 hypotheses about expert system: [f]

Strong AI hypothesis: An expert system system can have "a mind" and "consciousness".
Weak AI hypothesis: A synthetic intelligence system can (just) act like it thinks and has a mind and awareness.


The first one he called "strong" because it makes a stronger statement: it presumes something special has actually happened to the device that goes beyond those abilities that we can test. The behaviour of a "weak AI" device would be specifically similar to a "strong AI" maker, however the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This use is likewise typical in scholastic AI research and books. [129]

In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil use the term "strong AI" to indicate "human level synthetic general intelligence". [102] This is not the same as Searle's strong AI, unless it is assumed that awareness is essential for human-level AGI. Academic thinkers such as Searle do not believe that holds true, and to most synthetic intelligence researchers the concern is out-of-scope. [130]

Mainstream AI is most thinking about how a program behaves. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they do not care if you call it genuine or a simulation." [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no need to understand if it really has mind - indeed, there would be no way to tell. For AI research study, 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 don't care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for scholastic AI research, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 different things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have various significances, and some aspects play considerable functions in science fiction and the principles of artificial intelligence:

Sentience (or "sensational awareness"): The capability to "feel" perceptions or emotions subjectively, instead of the ability to reason about perceptions. Some philosophers, such as David Chalmers, use the term "consciousness" to refer exclusively to incredible awareness, which is roughly comparable to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience emerges is known as the tough issue of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel discussed in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be conscious. If we are not conscious, then it doesn't feel like anything. Nagel uses the example of a bat: we can smartly ask "what does it seem 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 appears to be mindful (i.e., has consciousness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually accomplished life, though this claim was commonly challenged by other professionals. [135]

Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a different person, particularly to be knowingly conscious of one's own ideas. This is opposed to merely being the "topic of one's thought"-an operating system or debugger has the ability to be "familiar with itself" (that is, to represent itself in the very same way it represents whatever else)-but this is not what individuals normally imply when they use the term "self-awareness". [g]

These qualities have a moral dimension. AI sentience would offer rise to concerns of welfare and legal defense, likewise to animals. [136] Other elements of consciousness associated to cognitive capabilities are likewise pertinent to the idea of AI rights. [137] Determining how to integrate sophisticated AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emergent concern. [138]

Benefits

AGI could have a wide range of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI could assist mitigate numerous problems on the planet such as cravings, poverty and health issue. [139]

AGI might enhance performance and efficiency in most tasks. For example, in public health, AGI could accelerate medical research, significantly against cancer. [140] It could take care of the senior, [141] and democratize access to quick, premium medical diagnostics. It might provide enjoyable, low-cost and customized education. [141] The need to work to subsist could end up being outdated if the wealth produced is effectively rearranged. [141] [142] This also raises the question of the place of humans in a radically automated society.

AGI might also help to make logical choices, and to anticipate and avoid disasters. It might likewise assist to reap the benefits of potentially catastrophic technologies such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while preventing the associated dangers. [143] If an AGI's primary objective is to prevent existential catastrophes such as human extinction (which could be difficult if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being true), [144] it could take measures to significantly reduce the threats [143] while reducing the impact of these steps on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential risks

AGI might represent several types of existential danger, which are dangers that threaten "the early termination of Earth-originating intelligent life or the long-term and extreme damage of its potential for desirable future development". [145] The threat of human extinction from AGI has actually been the subject of numerous arguments, however there is also the possibility that the development of AGI would lead to a permanently flawed future. Notably, it could be used to spread and preserve the set of worths of whoever establishes it. If humankind still has ethical blind spots comparable to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, avoiding moral progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI could facilitate mass monitoring and brainwashing, which might be used to develop a stable repressive around the world totalitarian regime. [147] [148] There is also a risk for the makers themselves. If machines that are sentient or otherwise deserving of moral factor to consider are mass produced in the future, participating in a civilizational course that indefinitely overlooks their well-being and interests could be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI might enhance mankind's future and help in reducing other existential threats, Toby Ord calls these existential threats "an argument for continuing with due care", not for "abandoning AI". [147]

Risk of loss of control and human termination

The thesis that AI postures an existential danger for humans, and that this danger requires more attention, is controversial but has actually been backed in 2023 by many public figures, AI scientists and CEOs of AI business such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis and Sam Altman. [151] [152]

In 2014, Stephen Hawking criticized widespread indifference:

So, facing possible futures of enormous advantages and threats, the professionals are certainly doing everything possible to guarantee the very best result, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll show up in a couple of decades,' would we just reply, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is basically what is occurring with AI. [153]

The prospective fate of mankind has actually in some cases been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast states that greater intelligence permitted mankind to control gorillas, which are now vulnerable in manner ins which they might not have prepared for. As a result, the gorilla has actually become a threatened species, not out of malice, however just as a security damage from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to dominate humanity and that we ought to beware not to anthropomorphize them and interpret their intents as we would for humans. He stated that individuals will not be "clever enough to create super-intelligent machines, yet unbelievably dumb to the point of giving it moronic objectives without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the idea of instrumental convergence recommends that almost whatever their goals, smart representatives will have factors to attempt to survive and get more power as intermediary steps to attaining these objectives. And that this does not need having feelings. [156]

Many scholars who are worried about existential risk supporter for more research into solving the "control issue" to answer the concern: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers implement to increase the possibility that their recursively-improving AI would continue to act in a friendly, instead of devastating, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is complicated by the AI arms race (which could cause a race to the bottom of safety preventative measures in order to release products before competitors), [159] and the use of AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can position existential threat also has detractors. Skeptics generally state that AGI is not likely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI sidetrack from other concerns associated with present AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for lots of people outside of the technology market, existing chatbots and LLMs are already perceived as though they were AGI, causing further misunderstanding and worry. [162]

Skeptics often charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an illogical belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an irrational belief in a supreme God. [163] Some scientists believe that the communication projects on AI existential threat by specific AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) may be an at attempt at regulatory capture and to pump up interest in their products. [164] [165]

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, in addition to other industry leaders and scientists, released a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the danger of extinction from AI ought to be a worldwide priority together with other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]

Mass joblessness

Researchers from OpenAI approximated that "80% of the U.S. workforce could have at least 10% of their work jobs affected by the introduction of LLMs, while around 19% of employees may see a minimum of 50% of their tasks impacted". [166] [167] They consider office workers to be the most exposed, for instance mathematicians, accountants or web designers. [167] AGI could have a better autonomy, ability to make decisions, to interface with other computer system tools, however also 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 take pleasure in a life of glamorous leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or many people can end up miserably bad if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. Up until now, the pattern appears to be toward the 2nd option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

Elon Musk considers that the automation of society will require federal governments to adopt a universal fundamental income. [168]

See also

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities similar to those of the animal or human brain
AI effect
AI safety - Research area on making AI safe and advantageous
AI positioning - AI conformance to the designated objective
A.I. Rising - 2018 film directed by Lazar Bodroža
Expert system
Automated machine learning - Process of automating the application of machine learning
BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research study effort announced by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research study centre
General game playing - Ability of artificial intelligence to play different games
Generative expert system - AI system capable of creating material in action to prompts
Human Brain Project - Scientific research study task
Intelligence amplification - Use of details technology to enhance human intelligence (IA).
Machine ethics - Moral behaviours of man-made devices.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task knowing - Solving numerous maker discovering tasks at the exact same time.
Neural scaling law - Statistical law in artificial intelligence.
Outline of expert system - Overview of and topical guide to synthetic intelligence.
Transhumanism - Philosophical motion.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or kind of expert system.
Transfer knowing - Machine learning method.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competition.
Hardware for synthetic intelligence - Hardware specially created and enhanced for expert system.
Weak expert system - Form of expert system.


Notes

^ a b See below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the academic definition of "strong AI" and weak AI in the post Chinese room.
^ AI creator John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet define in basic what sort of computational treatments we desire to call intelligent. " [26] (For a discussion of some meanings of intelligence utilized by expert system researchers, see philosophy of synthetic intelligence.).
^ The Lighthill report specifically criticized AI's "grand goals" and led the dismantling of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became identified to money just "mission-oriented direct research, rather than standard undirected research". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy writes "it would be a fantastic relief to the rest of the workers in AI if the innovators of new general formalisms would express their hopes in a more secured type than has actually sometimes held true." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More just recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented.
^ As specified in a basic AI textbook: "The assertion that machines might perhaps act wisely (or, maybe better, act as if they were smart) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that devices that do so are actually thinking (as opposed to imitating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is synthetic narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is developed to carry out a single job.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to make sure that artificial general intelligence advantages all of humanity.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's new goal is creating artificial basic intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to build AI that is much better than human-level at all of the human senses.
^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Study of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D tasks were recognized as being active in 2020.
^ a b c "AI timelines: What do professionals in 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 cautions of danger ahead". The New York City Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is difficult to see how you can prevent 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 explores 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 Times. The genuine hazard is not AI itself however the way we deploy it.
^ "Impressed by expert system? Experts state AGI is coming next, and it has 'existential' risks". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might posture existential threats 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 invention that mankind needs to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. Mitigating the threat of termination from AI ought to be an international concern.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts 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 producing devices that can outthink us in general methods.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not present an existential risk". Medium. There is no reason to fear AI as an existential hazard.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the original on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil describes strong AI as "machine intelligence with the full 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 original on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
^ "What is artificial superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Expert system is transforming our world - it is on everybody 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 on the subjects covered by significant AI textbooks, consisting of: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998.
^ Johnson 1987.
^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body forms the way we think: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reconsidered: The principle of skills". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: The idea of skills". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the original on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the original on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What happens when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ "Eugene Goostman is a genuine young boy - the Turing Test says so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ "Scientists challenge whether computer system 'Eugene Goostman' passed Turing test". BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). "People can not differentiate GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC]
^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI models like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing whatever from the bar test to AP Biology. Here's a list of difficult examinations both AI versions have passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Expert System Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Capitalize on It". Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is unreliable. The Winograd Schema is obsolete. Coffee is the answer". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder suggested checking 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 City: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".).
^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Specifying Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Expert System, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 22 May 2013.
^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50.
^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). "Expert System, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the original on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
^ Simon 1965, p. 96 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109.
^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008.
^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), priced quote in Crevier (1993, p. 109).
^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994.
^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment".
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22.
^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see likewise Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212.
^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). "Respond to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007.
^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). "Behind Expert system, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer researchers and software application engineers prevented the term expert system 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 original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20
^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300.
^ Gubrud 1997
^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Artificial Intelligence: 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 original on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ "Who coined the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the initial on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., through Life 3.0: 'The term "AGI" was promoted by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel'
^ Wang & Goertzel 2007
^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summer season school: June 22 - July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009". Archived from the original on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 - зимен триместър" [Elective courses 2010/2011 - winter trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limits of maker intelligence: Despite progress in device intelligence, synthetic general intelligence is still a major difficulty". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early 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 become 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 synthetic intelligence will not be recognized". 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 destruction?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future progress in artificial intelligence: A study of expert viewpoint. In Fundamental issues 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