Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of expert system (AI) that matches or goes beyond human cognitive capabilities across a wide range of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is restricted to particular tasks. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that significantly exceeds human cognitive abilities. AGI is thought about among the definitions of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a main goal of AI research study and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 study identified 72 active AGI research study and advancement jobs across 37 countries. [4]

The timeline for achieving AGI stays a subject of ongoing debate amongst scientists and professionals. As of 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or decades; others keep it might take a century or longer; a minority think it may never be attained; and another minority claims that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton has revealed concerns about the quick progress towards AGI, suggesting it might be attained earlier than numerous anticipate. [7]

There is dispute on the specific meaning of AGI and concerning whether modern large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early forms of AGI. [8] AGI is a typical topic in science fiction and futures research studies. [9] [10]

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. [11] [12] [13] Many professionals on AI have actually specified that mitigating the risk of human termination presented by AGI must be an international top priority. [14] [15] Others find the development of AGI to be too remote to present such a risk. [16] [17]

Terminology

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

Some scholastic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer system programs that experience life or consciousness. [a] In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) has the ability to fix one specific issue however does not have basic cognitive abilities. [22] [19] Some scholastic sources utilize "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the same sense as people. [a]

Related concepts consist of artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical type of AGI that is far more generally smart than humans, [23] while the notion of transformative AI associates with AI having a big impact on society, for instance, similar to the farming or industrial transformation. [24]

A structure for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They define five levels of AGI: emerging, competent, specialist, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a qualified AGI is defined as an AI that surpasses 50% of competent adults in a large range of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is likewise defined but with a limit of 100%. They consider 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. Among the leading proposals is the Turing test. However, there are other popular definitions, and some scientists disagree with the more popular techniques. [b]

Intelligence traits

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

reason, use strategy, solve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty
represent knowledge, consisting of sound judgment understanding
plan
find out
- interact in natural language
- if necessary, incorporate these abilities in conclusion of any given goal


Many interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and photorum.eclat-mauve.fr choice making) think about extra traits such as imagination (the capability to form unique mental images and principles) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that exhibit much of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated thinking, choice support group, robot, evolutionary calculation, intelligent representative). There is debate about whether modern-day AI systems have them to a sufficient degree.

Physical qualities

Other abilities are thought about preferable in intelligent systems, as they may impact intelligence or help in its expression. These include: [30]

- the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and
- the ability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate items, modification place to check out, and so on).


This includes the capability to detect and react to danger. [31]

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the ability to act (e.g. move and manipulate things, change place to explore, etc) can be preferable for some smart 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) may currently be or end up being AGI. Even from a less positive perspective on LLMs, there is no company requirement for an AGI to have a human-like form; being a silicon-based computational system is adequate, offered it can process input (language) from the external world in location of human senses. This analysis lines up with the understanding that AGI has actually never ever been proscribed a specific physical personification and hence does not demand a capability for mobility or standard "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

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

The concept of the test is that the device has to attempt and pretend to be a male, by answering concerns put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is fairly convincing. A considerable portion of a jury, who need to not be professional about makers, must be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete issues

An issue is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is believed that in order to fix it, one would require to execute AGI, because the option is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]

There are many issues that have actually been conjectured to need basic intelligence to fix in addition to humans. Examples include computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected situations while resolving any real-world issue. [48] Even a particular task like translation requires a maker to check out and write in both languages, follow the author's argument (reason), comprehend the context (knowledge), and faithfully recreate the author's initial intent (social intelligence). All of these problems require to be resolved all at once in order to reach human-level machine efficiency.

However, numerous of these jobs can now be performed by contemporary big language models. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has reached human-level efficiency on numerous criteria for checking out understanding and visual thinking. [49]

History

Classical AI

Modern AI research study began in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI scientists were persuaded that synthetic general intelligence was possible which it would exist in just a couple of decades. [51] AI leader Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do." [52]

Their forecasts were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers believed they might produce by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was an expert [53] on the project of making HAL 9000 as realistic as possible according to the agreement predictions of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation ... the issue of producing 'expert system' will considerably be fixed". [54]

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

However, in the early 1970s, it became apparent that scientists had grossly undervalued the problem of the job. Funding firms ended up being doubtful of AGI and put scientists under increasing pressure to produce helpful "used AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project revived interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that consisted of AGI objectives like "bring on a casual conversation". [58] In response to this and the success of specialist systems, both industry and federal government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI spectacularly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the objectives of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever fulfilled. [60] For the second time in twenty years, AI scientists who anticipated the imminent achievement of AGI had actually been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a track record for making vain pledges. They became reluctant to make forecasts at all [d] and avoided reference of "human level" expert system for worry of being identified "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI attained business success and scholastic respectability by focusing on specific sub-problems where AI can produce proven outcomes and business applications, such as speech acknowledgment and suggestion algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now utilized thoroughly throughout the technology market, and research study in this vein is greatly moneyed in both academic community and market. Since 2018 [update], 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, lots of mainstream AI researchers [65] hoped that strong AI could be developed by combining programs that resolve various sub-problems. Hans Moravec composed in 1988:

I am positive that this bottom-up route to expert system will one day fulfill the conventional top-down path more than half way, ready to supply the real-world competence and the commonsense understanding that has actually been so frustratingly elusive in thinking programs. Fully intelligent devices will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven uniting the 2 efforts. [65]

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

The expectation has actually typically been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way fulfill "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper are valid, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is really just one practical path from sense to signs: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software level of a computer system will never ever be reached by this route (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we should even attempt to reach such a level, since it appears arriving would just amount to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic meanings (consequently simply minimizing ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]

Modern artificial general intelligence research

The term "artificial general intelligence" was utilized as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation of the implications of completely 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 please goals in a large range of environments". [68] This kind of AGI, characterized by the capability to increase a mathematical meaning of intelligence instead of display human-like behaviour, [69] was also 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 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 very first university course was provided in 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT provided a course on AGI in 2018, organized by Lex Fridman and featuring a variety of visitor speakers.

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

Feasibility

As of 2023, the advancement and possible achievement of AGI remains a subject of intense dispute within the AI neighborhood. While traditional consensus held that AGI was a remote objective, current improvements have actually led some scientists and market figures to claim that early types of AGI may already exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon hypothesized in 1965 that "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do". This prediction failed to come true. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century due to the fact that it would require "unforeseeable and basically unpredictable developments" and a "clinically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf in between contemporary computing and human-level artificial intelligence is as wide as the gulf in between existing area flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

An additional challenge is the absence of clarity in specifying what intelligence involves. Does it require awareness? Must it display the ability to set goals in addition to pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are facilities such as preparation, reasoning, and causal understanding needed? Does intelligence require clearly reproducing the brain and its particular faculties? Does it need emotions? [81]

Most AI researchers believe strong AI can be accomplished in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, reject the possibility of achieving strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who think human-level AI will be accomplished, but that today level of progress is such that a date can not precisely be predicted. [84] AI professionals' views on the expediency of AGI wax and wane. Four surveys conducted in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the median quote among professionals for when they would be 50% positive AGI would get here was 2040 to 2050, depending on the poll, with the mean being 2081. Of the experts, 16.5% addressed with "never" when asked the same question but with a 90% self-confidence instead. [85] [86] Further existing AGI progress factors to consider can be discovered above Tests for confirming human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute discovered that "over [a] 60-year timespan there is a strong bias towards predicting the arrival of human-level AI as in between 15 and 25 years from the time the forecast was made". They examined 95 forecasts made between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]

In 2023, Microsoft scientists released a comprehensive assessment of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, our company believe that it could fairly be considered as an early (yet still insufficient) version of an artificial basic intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another research study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outperforms 99% of human beings on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig composed in 2023 that a significant level of basic intelligence has already been accomplished with frontier designs. They wrote that reluctance to this view originates from 4 main factors: a "healthy skepticism about metrics for AGI", an "ideological commitment to alternative AI theories or methods", a "devotion 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 capable of processing or producing numerous modalities such as text, audio, and images). [92]

In 2024, OpenAI launched o1-preview, the very first of a series of models that "spend more time thinking before they respond". According to Mira Murati, this ability to think before reacting represents a brand-new, extra paradigm. It improves model outputs by investing more computing power when generating the answer, whereas the model scaling paradigm enhances outputs by increasing the model size, training information and training calculate power. [93] [94]

An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, claimed in 2024 that the business had attained AGI, mentioning, "In my viewpoint, we have actually already accomplished AGI and it's much 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 most people at most tasks." He likewise dealt with criticisms that big language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing procedure to the clinical approach of observing, hypothesizing, and confirming. These statements have actually triggered debate, as they count on a broad and unconventional meaning of AGI-traditionally understood as AI that matches human intelligence across all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models show exceptional versatility, they may not completely meet this standard. Notably, Kazemi's remarks came quickly after OpenAI got rid of "AGI" from the terms of its partnership with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the company's tactical intentions. [95]

Timescales

Progress in expert system has historically gone through durations of quick progress separated by periods when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were basic advances in hardware, software application or both to create space for further development. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware readily available in the twentieth century was not sufficient to carry out deep knowing, which needs large numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that price quotes of the time required before a genuinely versatile AGI is built vary from 10 years to over a century. Since 2007 [update], the consensus in the AGI research study community appeared to be that the timeline gone over by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was possible. [103] Mainstream AI researchers have offered a wide variety of opinions on whether progress will be this rapid. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such viewpoints found a predisposition towards predicting that the beginning of AGI would happen within 16-26 years for modern and historic forecasts alike. That paper has actually been criticized for how it categorized opinions as expert or non-expert. [104]

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

In 2017, scientists Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu carried out intelligence tests on openly available and freely accessible weak AI such as Google AI, Apple's Siri, and others. At the maximum, these AIs reached an IQ worth of about 47, which corresponds approximately to a six-year-old kid in very first grade. An adult concerns about 100 usually. Similar tests were performed in 2014, with the IQ score reaching an optimum worth of 27. [106] [107]

In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language model capable of performing many diverse tasks without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat post, while there is consensus that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is considered by some to be too advanced to be classified as a narrow AI system. [108]

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

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

In 2023, Microsoft Research published a study on an early variation of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it exhibited more basic intelligence than previous AI models and demonstrated human-level efficiency in jobs covering several domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study sparked a dispute on whether GPT-4 could be thought about an early, insufficient version of synthetic general intelligence, stressing the requirement for additional expedition and assessment of such systems. [111]

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

The idea that this things could in fact get smarter than individuals - a few individuals believed that, [...] But many people believed it was method off. And I believed it was way off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years or even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly stated that "The progress in the last few years has been quite amazing", which he sees no reason that it would slow down, anticipating AGI within a years or even a couple of years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, mentioned his expectation that within 5 years, AI would be capable of passing any test a minimum of as well as human beings. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI worker, estimated AGI by 2027 to be "strikingly plausible". [115]

Whole brain emulation

While the development of transformer models like in ChatGPT is considered the most appealing path to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can act as an alternative technique. With whole brain simulation, a brain model is developed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and after that copying and replicating it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation design need to be adequately faithful to the initial, so that it acts in almost the very same method as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is discussed in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study functions. It has been discussed in expert system research [103] as an approach to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that might deliver the essential comprehensive understanding are improving quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] forecasts that a map of enough quality will appear on a comparable timescale to the computing power required to replicate it.

Early estimates

For low-level brain simulation, a very powerful cluster of computers or GPUs would be required, given the enormous amount of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 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, stabilizing by the adult years. Estimates differ for an adult, ranging from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] An estimate of the brain's processing power, based upon an easy switch design for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil looked at numerous quotes for the hardware needed to equal the human brain and adopted a figure of 1016 calculations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a "computation" was equivalent to one "floating-point operation" - a procedure utilized to rate existing supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, accomplished in 2011, while 1018 was accomplished in 2022.) He utilized this figure to predict the needed hardware would be offered at some point in between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid growth in computer system power at the time of composing continued.

Current research study

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

Criticisms of simulation-based methods

The synthetic nerve cell design assumed by Kurzweil and utilized in many present synthetic neural network implementations is easy compared with biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely have to capture the comprehensive cellular behaviour of biological neurons, currently understood just in broad summary. The overhead introduced by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (specifically on a molecular scale) would require computational powers numerous orders of magnitude bigger than Kurzweil's quote. In addition, the estimates do not represent glial cells, which are known to play a role in cognitive processes. [125]

A fundamental criticism of the simulated brain method derives from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is a necessary element of human intelligence and is required to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is appropriate, any completely functional brain model will need to incorporate more than simply the neurons (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as a choice, but it is unidentified whether this would be sufficient.

Philosophical perspective

"Strong AI" as defined in viewpoint

In 1980, theorist John Searle created the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese room argument. [128] He proposed a distinction in between 2 hypotheses about artificial intelligence: [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 very first one he called "strong" because it makes a stronger statement: it assumes something unique has taken place to the device that surpasses those capabilities that we can evaluate. The behaviour of a "weak AI" machine would be exactly similar to a "strong AI" maker, but the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This use is likewise typical in academic AI research study and textbooks. [129]

In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil use the term "strong AI" to imply "human level synthetic basic intelligence". [102] This is not the very same as Searle's strong AI, unless it is assumed that awareness is needed for human-level AGI. Academic thinkers such as Searle do not believe that is the case, and to most expert system scientists the concern is out-of-scope. [130]

Mainstream AI is most interested in how a program acts. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they don't care if you call it genuine or a simulation." [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no need to know if it really has mind - certainly, there would be no method to tell. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is equivalent to the statement "synthetic basic intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI scientists take the weak AI hypothesis for approved, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research study, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have numerous significances, and some elements play considerable functions in science fiction and the principles of expert system:

Sentience (or "extraordinary consciousness"): The ability to "feel" understandings or feelings subjectively, instead of the capability to factor about perceptions. Some theorists, such as David Chalmers, utilize the term "consciousness" to refer specifically to incredible awareness, which is roughly comparable to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience emerges is called the tough issue of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel discussed in 1974 that it "seems like" something to be mindful. If we are not mindful, then it doesn't seem like anything. Nagel 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 feel like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat appears to be mindful (i.e., has awareness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the company's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually achieved sentience, though this claim was extensively contested by other professionals. [135]

Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a different individual, specifically to be consciously familiar with one's own ideas. This is opposed to simply being the "topic of one's believed"-an operating system or debugger is able to be "familiar with itself" (that is, to represent itself in the very same method it represents whatever else)-but this is not what individuals generally mean when they use the term "self-awareness". [g]

These characteristics have an ethical measurement. AI life would trigger issues of welfare and legal defense, similarly to animals. [136] Other aspects of consciousness associated to cognitive capabilities are likewise relevant to the idea of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to integrate sophisticated AI with existing legal and social structures is an emerging concern. [138]

Benefits

AGI might have a variety of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI might assist mitigate different issues worldwide such as cravings, poverty and illness. [139]

AGI might improve performance and performance in most tasks. For example, in public health, AGI could accelerate medical research study, especially against cancer. [140] It might take care of the elderly, [141] and democratize access to quick, high-quality medical diagnostics. It might provide enjoyable, low-cost and personalized education. [141] The need to work to subsist might become obsolete if the wealth produced is effectively rearranged. [141] [142] This likewise raises the question of the location of people in a drastically automated society.

AGI could also assist to make logical decisions, and to anticipate and prevent catastrophes. It might also assist to profit of possibly disastrous innovations such as nanotechnology or environment engineering, while preventing the associated threats. [143] If an AGI's main goal is to avoid existential catastrophes such as human extinction (which might be challenging if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being real), [144] it could take steps to drastically reduce the dangers [143] while decreasing the effect of these steps on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential dangers

AGI may represent numerous kinds of existential risk, which are risks that threaten "the early termination of Earth-originating intelligent life or the permanent and extreme destruction of its capacity for preferable future development". [145] The risk of human extinction from AGI has been the subject of numerous debates, but there is likewise the possibility that the advancement of AGI would result in a completely problematic future. Notably, it could be used to spread and preserve the set of values of whoever establishes it. If mankind still has moral blind areas comparable to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, avoiding ethical progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI could facilitate mass security and indoctrination, which might be utilized to develop a stable repressive around the world totalitarian routine. [147] [148] There is also a danger for the machines themselves. If devices that are sentient or otherwise deserving of moral consideration are mass produced in the future, participating in a civilizational course that indefinitely disregards their well-being and interests might be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering how much AGI could improve humankind's future and help reduce other existential dangers, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for continuing with due caution", not for "abandoning AI". [147]

Risk of loss of control and human extinction

The thesis that AI poses an existential threat for human beings, which this risk needs more attention, is questionable but has actually been endorsed in 2023 by numerous 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 prevalent indifference:

So, facing possible futures of enormous advantages and threats, the professionals are surely doing everything possible to guarantee the very best result, right? Wrong. If an exceptional alien civilisation sent us a message saying, 'We'll arrive in a few years,' would we simply reply, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is basically what is happening with AI. [153]

The potential fate of humankind has actually often been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast specifies that higher intelligence enabled humankind to control gorillas, which are now vulnerable in manner ins which they might not have actually prepared for. As an outcome, the gorilla has ended up being an endangered types, not out of malice, but just as a collateral damage from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to control humanity which we need to take care not to anthropomorphize them and interpret their intents as we would for people. He stated that people won't be "wise sufficient to design super-intelligent machines, yet extremely dumb to the point of offering it moronic goals without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the idea of critical convergence recommends that practically whatever their objectives, smart representatives will have reasons to try to endure and obtain more power as intermediary actions to achieving these goals. Which this does not require having feelings. [156]

Many scholars who are worried about existential danger advocate for more research into fixing the "control problem" to answer the concern: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers implement to maximise the probability that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, rather than destructive, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is made complex by the AI arms race (which might lead to a race to the bottom of safety preventative measures in order to launch items before rivals), [159] and the use of AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can position existential danger also has critics. Skeptics normally state that AGI is not likely in the short-term, or that concerns about AGI distract from other concerns associated with existing AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder considers that for lots of people outside of the technology industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are already perceived as though they were AGI, leading to additional misconception and worry. [162]

Skeptics in some cases charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an illogical belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an unreasonable belief in a supreme God. [163] Some scientists think that the interaction campaigns on AI existential risk by specific AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might be an at effort at regulatory capture and to pump up interest in their products. [164] [165]

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, along with other market leaders and scientists, issued a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the threat of extinction from AI ought to be a global priority together with other societal-scale threats such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]

Mass unemployment

Researchers from OpenAI approximated that "80% of the U.S. workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks impacted by the introduction of LLMs, while around 19% of workers might see a minimum of 50% of their jobs impacted". [166] [167] They think about workplace employees to be the most exposed, for example mathematicians, accountants or web designers. [167] AGI could have a much better autonomy, capability to make choices, to interface with other computer system tools, but also to manage robotized bodies.

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

Everyone can enjoy a life of elegant leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or many people can end up badly poor if the machine-owners effectively lobby against wealth redistribution. Up until now, the pattern appears to be toward the second option, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality

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

See likewise

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities similar to those of the animal or human brain
AI impact
AI safety - Research location on making AI safe and helpful
AI positioning - AI conformance to the intended goal
A.I. Rising - 2018 film directed by Lazar Bodroža
Expert system
Automated device knowing - Process of automating the application of artificial intelligence
BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research effort announced by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre
General video game playing - Ability of synthetic intelligence to play various games
Generative synthetic intelligence - AI system capable of producing material in response to prompts
Human Brain Project - Scientific research project
Intelligence amplification - Use of infotech to augment human intelligence (IA).
Machine principles - Moral behaviours of manufactured devices.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task knowing - Solving multiple maker learning 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 movement.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or type of synthetic intelligence.
Transfer learning - Machine knowing method.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competition.
Hardware for expert system - Hardware specifically designed and optimized 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 short article Chinese room.
^ AI founder John McCarthy writes: "we can not yet define in general what type of computational procedures we desire to call intelligent. " [26] (For a discussion of some definitions of intelligence used by expert system scientists, see viewpoint of artificial intelligence.).
^ The Lighthill report specifically criticized AI's "grandiose objectives" and led the taking apart of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became determined to fund only "mission-oriented direct research, instead of basic undirected research study". [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy composes "it would be a fantastic relief to the rest of the workers in AI if the inventors of new general formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more guarded kind than has sometimes held true." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is utilized. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would approximately represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in regards to MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented.
^ As specified in a standard AI book: "The assertion that devices could potentially act wisely (or, maybe better, act as if they were smart) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by thinkers, 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 perform a single job.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to make sure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of mankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's new goal is creating synthetic general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to build AI that is much better than human-level at all of the human senses.
^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A 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 tasks 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 City Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023.
^ "AI leader Geoffrey Hinton gives up Google and warns 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 actors from using it for bad things.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 shows triggers of AGI.
^ Butler, Octavia E. (1993 ). Parable of the Sower. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4466-7550-5. All that you touch you change. All that you change changes you.
^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming.
^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Expert System". The New York Times. The real risk is not AI itself but the way we release it.
^ "Impressed by expert system? Experts state AGI is following, and it has 'existential' risks". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI could pose existential risks to humankind.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The very first superintelligence will be the last development that humankind requires to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. Mitigating the danger of extinction from AI ought to be a worldwide concern.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI professionals warn of danger of extinction 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 general methods.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not present an existential threat". Medium. There is no reason 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 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 original on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they use for "human-level" intelligence in the physical sign system hypothesis.
^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the initial on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
^ "What is synthetic superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Artificial intelligence is changing our world - it is on all of us to make certain that it works out". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to accomplishing AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat.
^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of intelligent characteristics is based upon the topics covered by major AI books, including: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998.
^ Johnson 1987.
^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York City: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body shapes the method we believe: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reconsidered: 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 concept 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 initial on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the 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 takes place when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ "Eugene Goostman is a real kid - the Turing Test says so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ "Scientists challenge whether computer system 'Eugene Goostman' passed Turing test". BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). "People can not identify GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC]
^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI designs like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing whatever from the bar examination to AP Biology. Here's a list of tough exams 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 Profit From 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 response". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder recommended testing an AI chatbot's capability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to measure human-like intelligence". Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). "Mustafa Suleyman: My brand-new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Expert System" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Expert System (Second ed.). New York City: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".).
^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Specifying Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). 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 Artificial Intelligence. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50.
^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). "Artificial Intelligence, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the original on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
^ Simon 1965, p. 96 priced quote 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 ), quoted 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 initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer researchers and software engineers avoided the term expert system for fear of being deemed wild-eyed dreamers.
^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26
^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the initial on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20
^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300.
^ Gubrud 1997
^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based Upon Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the original on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ "Who created the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the initial on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., by means of Life 3.0: 'The term "AGI" was popularized by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel'
^ Wang & Goertzel 2007
^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main 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 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 development in machine intelligence, synthetic basic 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 experiments with GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ "Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing "Sparks" of AGI". Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023.
^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). "The Singularity Isn't Near". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Winfield, Alan. "Expert system will not 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 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 utopia or damage?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future development in expert system: A survey of expert viewpoint. In Fundamental concerns of synthetic intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.
^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, modified by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia
^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023.
^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The originality of devices: AI takes the Torrance Test". Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185.
^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema.
^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). "Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024". Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
^ "Introducing OpenAI o1-preview". OpenAI. 12 September 2024.
^ Knight, Will. "OpenAI Announces a New AI Model, wiki.insidertoday.org Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024.
^ "OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved". Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024.
^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ "Next-Gen AI: OpenAI and Meta's Leap Towards Reasoning Machines". Unite.ai. 19 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ James, Alex P. (2022 ). "The Why, What, and How of Artificial General Intelligence Chip Development". IE