Artificial basic intelligence (AGI) is a type of expert system (AI) that matches or exceeds human cognitive abilities throughout a wide variety of cognitive tasks. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is restricted to specific tasks. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that significantly goes beyond human cognitive abilities. AGI is considered among the definitions of strong AI.
Creating AGI is a primary goal of AI research study and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 study recognized 72 active AGI research study and development jobs across 37 countries. [4]
The timeline for achieving AGI remains a subject of ongoing dispute amongst researchers and specialists. Since 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or years; others keep it may take a century or longer; a minority think it might never be achieved; and another minority claims that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has revealed issues about the quick development towards AGI, recommending it might be attained earlier than many expect. [7]
There is dispute on the precise meaning of AGI and regarding whether modern-day big language designs (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early kinds of AGI. [8] AGI is a common topic in science fiction and futures research studies. [9] [10]
Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. [11] [12] [13] Many specialists on AI have actually stated that mitigating the danger of human termination posed by AGI ought to be an international concern. [14] [15] Others discover the advancement of AGI to be too remote to provide 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 smart action. [21]
Some academic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer system programs that experience sentience or consciousness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) has the ability to fix one particular issue but lacks general cognitive capabilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the very same sense as human beings. [a]
Related principles consist of artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical type of AGI that is far more usually intelligent than human beings, [23] while the notion of transformative AI relates to AI having a big influence on society, for instance, comparable to the agricultural or industrial transformation. [24]
A framework for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They define five levels of AGI: emerging, competent, expert, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a proficient AGI is specified as an AI that surpasses 50% of competent grownups in a wide variety of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. a synthetic superintelligence) is likewise specified however with a threshold of 100%. They think about large language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]
Characteristics
Various popular meanings of intelligence have been proposed. One of the leading proposals is the Turing test. However, there are other widely known definitions, and some researchers disagree with the more popular techniques. [b]
Intelligence characteristics
Researchers normally hold that intelligence is needed to do all of the following: [27]
factor, usage technique, fix puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty
represent understanding, including sound judgment understanding
plan
discover
- communicate in natural language
- if essential, integrate these skills in conclusion of any offered goal
Many interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) consider extra qualities such as imagination (the capability to form novel psychological images and concepts) [28] and autonomy. [29]
Computer-based systems that display much of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated reasoning, choice support group, robot, evolutionary computation, intelligent representative). There is dispute about whether modern-day AI systems have them to an adequate degree.
Physical qualities
Other abilities are considered desirable in intelligent systems, as they might affect intelligence or aid in its expression. These consist of: [30]
- the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and
- the ability to act (e.g. relocation and control objects, modification place to explore, and so on).
This includes the capability to spot and react to threat. [31]
Although the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the capability to act (e.g. move and control objects, modification area to check out, and so on) can be preferable for some smart systems, [30] these physical abilities are not strictly needed for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that large language models (LLMs) might currently be or morphomics.science become AGI. Even from a less optimistic point of view on LLMs, there is no company requirement for an AGI to have a human-like form; being a silicon-based computational system is sufficient, offered it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This interpretation aligns with the understanding that AGI has never been proscribed a specific physical embodiment and therefore does not require a capacity for locomotion or traditional "eyes and ears". [32]
Tests for human-level AGI
Several tests indicated to confirm human-level AGI have been considered, including: [33] [34]
The concept of the test is that the device has to try and pretend to be a male, by responding to concerns put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is reasonably persuading. A significant part of a jury, who ought to not be professional about devices, need to be taken in by the pretence. [37]
AI-complete issues
A problem is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is believed that in order to solve it, one would require to implement AGI, due to the fact that the solution is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]
There are many issues that have been conjectured to need general intelligence to solve along with human beings. Examples include computer vision, natural language understanding, and handling unanticipated circumstances while fixing any real-world issue. [48] Even a particular task like translation requires a device to check out and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), comprehend the context (knowledge), and consistently recreate the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these problems need to be resolved at the same time in order to reach human-level maker performance.
However, a number of these jobs can now be performed by modern large language models. 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 started in the mid-1950s. [50] The first generation of AI scientists were encouraged that synthetic general intelligence was possible and that it would exist in just a few decades. [51] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do." [52]
Their predictions were the motivation for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers thought they could create by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was an expert [53] on the task of making HAL 9000 as sensible as possible according to the consensus predictions of the time. He stated in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of creating 'synthetic intelligence' will substantially 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 ended up being obvious that scientists had grossly ignored the difficulty of the job. Funding firms became skeptical of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce useful "used AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project restored interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that included AGI goals like "continue a casual conversation". [58] In response to this and the success of professional systems, both market and federal government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, self-confidence in AI amazingly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever fulfilled. [60] For the second time in twenty years, AI researchers who anticipated the impending accomplishment of AGI had actually been mistaken. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a reputation for making vain guarantees. They became reluctant to make predictions at all [d] and avoided mention 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 accomplished business success and scholastic respectability by concentrating on particular sub-problems where AI can produce proven outcomes and industrial applications, such as speech acknowledgment and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now utilized thoroughly throughout the innovation market, and research study in this vein is greatly funded in both academia and industry. Since 2018 [update], development in this field was considered an emerging trend, and a fully grown stage was anticipated to be reached in more than ten years. [64]
At the turn of the century, numerous traditional AI researchers [65] hoped that strong AI could be developed by combining programs that fix different sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:
I am positive that this bottom-up path to expert system will one day meet the traditional top-down path majority method, prepared to provide the real-world competence and the commonsense understanding that has actually been so frustratingly evasive in thinking programs. Fully smart makers will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven joining the 2 efforts. [65]
However, even at the time, this was disputed. For instance, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the sign grounding hypothesis by specifying:
The expectation has typically been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow fulfill "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches someplace in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is truly only one viable path from sense to signs: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software level of a computer will never ever be reached by this route (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we must even attempt to reach such a level, given that it looks as if getting there would just total up to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic meanings (consequently simply lowering ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer system). [66]
Modern artificial general intelligence research study
The term "artificial general intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation of the ramifications 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 satisfy objectives in a vast array of environments". [68] This type of AGI, identified by the capability to maximise a mathematical meaning of intelligence rather than display human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal synthetic intelligence. [70]
The term AGI was re-introduced and popularized by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research activity in 2006 was described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and initial outcomes". The 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 offered in 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 including a variety of guest lecturers.
Since 2023 [update], a small number of computer system scientists are active in AGI research, and lots of add to a series of AGI conferences. However, progressively more scientists are interested in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the idea of allowing AI to continuously discover and innovate like human beings do.
Feasibility
Since 2023, the advancement and possible achievement of AGI remains a subject of intense argument within the AI community. While traditional consensus held that AGI was a distant goal, current advancements have actually led some researchers and industry figures to claim that early forms of AGI may already exist. [78] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man 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 need "unforeseeable and essentially unpredictable advancements" and a "scientifically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf between modern computing and human-level synthetic intelligence is as wide as the gulf in between present area flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]
An additional difficulty is the lack of clearness in defining what intelligence requires. Does it need awareness? Must it show the ability to set goals along with pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as preparation, thinking, and causal understanding needed? Does intelligence require clearly duplicating the brain and its particular faculties? 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 think human-level AI will be achieved, but that today level of development is such that a date can not properly be forecasted. [84] AI professionals' views on the expediency of AGI wax and subside. Four surveys carried out in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the average estimate amongst professionals for when they would be 50% confident AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending on the poll, with the mean being 2081. Of the experts, 16.5% answered with "never" when asked the exact same concern however with a 90% confidence rather. [85] [86] Further present AGI progress considerations can be discovered above Tests for confirming human-level AGI.
A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute discovered that "over [a] 60-year timespan there is a strong predisposition towards anticipating the arrival of human-level AI as between 15 and 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 scientists released a comprehensive evaluation of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, our company believe that it might reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still insufficient) variation of an artificial basic intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outperforms 99% of humans on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]
Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig wrote in 2023 that a substantial level of general intelligence has already been accomplished with frontier models. They wrote that unwillingness to this view originates from four main reasons: a "healthy skepticism about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or techniques", a "devotion to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "issue about the financial implications of AGI". [91]
2023 likewise marked the development of big multimodal designs (big language models capable of processing or creating several methods such as text, audio, and images). [92]
In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the very first of a series of models that "spend more time believing before they respond". According to Mira Murati, this ability to believe before responding represents a brand-new, extra paradigm. It enhances design outputs by investing more computing power when generating the response, whereas the design scaling paradigm improves outputs by increasing the model size, training information and training calculate power. [93] [94]
An OpenAI worker, Vahid Kazemi, claimed in 2024 that the company had actually attained AGI, specifying, "In my opinion, we have already accomplished AGI and it's much more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "much better than any human at any task", it is "much better than most humans at many tasks." He also attended to criticisms that big language designs (LLMs) merely follow predefined patterns, comparing their learning procedure to the scientific technique of observing, assuming, and validating. These declarations have actually triggered dispute, as they count on a broad and unconventional definition of AGI-traditionally understood as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models demonstrate exceptional versatility, they might not fully fulfill this requirement. Notably, Kazemi's remarks came shortly after OpenAI got rid of "AGI" from the terms of its collaboration with Microsoft, triggering speculation about the business's strategic objectives. [95]
Timescales
Progress in synthetic intelligence has actually traditionally gone through periods of quick development separated by periods when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were essential advances in hardware, software application or both to produce area for further progress. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware readily available in the twentieth century was not enough to carry out deep knowing, which needs big numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]
In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel says that quotes of the time required before a genuinely flexible AGI is developed differ from ten years to over a century. As of 2007 [update], the agreement in the AGI research study neighborhood seemed to be that the timeline talked about by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was possible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have given a wide variety of opinions on whether progress will be this quick. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such viewpoints found a bias towards anticipating that the start of AGI would occur within 16-26 years for modern-day and historic predictions alike. That paper has been criticized for how it classified viewpoints as expert or non-expert. [104]
In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton developed a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competition with a top-5 test mistake rate of 15.3%, substantially much better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the standard method used a weighted sum of ratings from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered the preliminary ground-breaker of the current deep learning wave. [105]
In 2017, scientists Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu conducted intelligence tests on publicly offered and freely available 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 first grade. An adult comes to about 100 usually. Similar tests were performed in 2014, with the IQ score reaching an optimum worth of 27. [106] [107]
In 2020, OpenAI developed GPT-3, a language model capable of performing lots of 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 establish a chatbot, and supplied a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI asked for modifications to the chatbot to adhere to their safety guidelines; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]
In 2022, DeepMind established Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of performing more than 600 different jobs. [110]
In 2023, Microsoft Research published a study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it showed 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 study sparked an argument on whether GPT-4 could be thought about an early, insufficient variation of artificial basic intelligence, emphasizing the requirement for additional exploration and examination of such systems. [111]
In 2023, the AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton specified that: [112]
The concept that this stuff could really get smarter than individuals - a couple of individuals thought that, [...] But the majority of people believed it was way off. And I believed it was method off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years and even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.
In May 2023, Demis Hassabis likewise said that "The development in the last few years has been quite unbelievable", which he sees no factor why it would slow down, anticipating AGI within a decade or perhaps a couple of years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, specified his expectation that within five years, AI would be capable of passing any test a minimum of in addition to people. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI employee, approximated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably possible". [115]
Whole brain emulation
While the development of transformer models like in ChatGPT is thought about the most promising course to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can function as an alternative approach. With entire brain simulation, a brain model is built by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and after that copying and mimicing it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation design need to be adequately devoted to the original, so that it behaves in almost the same way as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is talked about in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study functions. It has actually been discussed in synthetic intelligence research study [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that might deliver the necessary detailed understanding are improving quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] anticipates that a map of sufficient quality will end up being offered on a similar timescale to the computing power needed to imitate it.
Early estimates
For low-level brain simulation, a very effective cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be needed, provided the massive quantity of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells has on typical 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other nerve cells. The brain of a three-year-old kid has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, supporting by their adult years. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A price quote of the brain's processing power, based on a basic switch design for nerve cell activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]
In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at numerous price quotes for the hardware needed to equal the human brain and adopted a figure of 1016 calculations per second (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a "calculation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a measure utilized to rate current supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be equivalent to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He used this figure to anticipate the necessary hardware would be offered at some point between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid growth in computer power at the time of writing continued.
Current research study
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, scientists from Duke University performed a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.
Criticisms of simulation-based techniques
The synthetic nerve cell model presumed by Kurzweil and utilized in lots of existing artificial neural network applications is easy compared with biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely have to capture the in-depth cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, currently comprehended only in broad overview. The overhead presented by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (specifically on a molecular scale) would need computational powers numerous orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's quote. In addition, the price quotes do not account for glial cells, which are known to contribute in cognitive processes. [125]
An essential criticism of the simulated brain technique derives from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is an essential aspect of human intelligence and is necessary to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is appropriate, any fully practical brain design will require to encompass more than simply the nerve cells (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an alternative, however it is unidentified whether this would suffice.
Philosophical point of view
"Strong AI" as defined in philosophy
In 1980, philosopher John Searle created the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese room argument. [128] He proposed a difference between 2 hypotheses about expert system: [f]
Strong AI hypothesis: A synthetic intelligence system can have "a mind" and "consciousness".
Weak AI hypothesis: An expert system system can (only) imitate it believes and has a mind and awareness.
The first one he called "strong" because it makes a stronger statement: it presumes something unique has occurred to the maker that goes beyond those abilities that we can check. The behaviour of a "weak AI" machine would be precisely identical to a "strong AI" machine, but the latter would likewise have subjective mindful experience. This use is also typical in scholastic AI research study and books. [129]
In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil utilize the term "strong AI" to mean "human level artificial general intelligence". [102] This is not the like Searle's strong AI, unless it is presumed that consciousness is needed for human-level AGI. Academic thinkers such as Searle do not believe that is the case, and to most synthetic intelligence scientists the question is out-of-scope. [130]
Mainstream AI is most interested in how a program behaves. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they don't care if you call it real or a simulation." [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no need to know if it in fact has mind - indeed, there would be no way to inform. For AI research study, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is equivalent to the statement "artificial general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI scientists take the weak AI hypothesis for granted, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are two different things.
Consciousness
Consciousness can have various significances, and some elements play substantial roles in sci-fi and the ethics of artificial intelligence:
Sentience (or "remarkable consciousness"): The ability to "feel" perceptions or feelings subjectively, as opposed to the ability to factor about understandings. Some thinkers, such as David Chalmers, use the term "consciousness" to refer solely to incredible awareness, which is approximately equivalent to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience occurs is called the tough issue of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel explained in 1974 that it "seems like" something to be mindful. If we are not conscious, then it doesn't seem like anything. Nagel uses the example of a bat: we can smartly ask "what does it feel like to be a bat?" However, we are not likely to ask "what does it feel like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat appears to be conscious (i.e., has consciousness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer declared that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had achieved sentience, though this claim was extensively disputed by other experts. [135]
Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a different person, especially to be consciously aware of one's own ideas. This is opposed to just being the "topic of one's believed"-an os or debugger has the ability to be "familiar with itself" (that is, to represent itself in the exact same method it represents whatever else)-but this is not what individuals generally indicate when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]
These qualities have a moral dimension. AI life would generate issues of well-being and legal defense, similarly to animals. [136] Other elements of awareness associated to cognitive abilities are likewise relevant to the concept of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to integrate advanced AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emerging issue. [138]
Benefits
AGI could have a broad range of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI might help reduce different issues in the world such as hunger, poverty and illness. [139]
AGI could enhance efficiency and efficiency in most tasks. For instance, in public health, AGI could speed up medical research study, significantly against cancer. [140] It might take care of the senior, [141] and equalize access to rapid, top quality medical diagnostics. It might provide enjoyable, inexpensive and personalized education. [141] The need to work to subsist could become obsolete if the wealth produced is properly rearranged. [141] [142] This also raises the concern of the place of humans in a drastically automated society.
AGI could also assist to make reasonable decisions, and to anticipate and prevent catastrophes. It might likewise assist to profit of possibly catastrophic technologies such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while preventing the associated dangers. [143] If an AGI's primary objective is to avoid existential disasters such as human termination (which might be challenging if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being real), [144] it could take measures to considerably reduce the risks [143] while decreasing the impact of these measures on our lifestyle.
Risks
Existential dangers
AGI may represent multiple kinds of existential danger, which are risks that threaten "the premature termination of Earth-originating smart life or the irreversible and extreme destruction of its capacity for preferable future advancement". [145] The danger of human extinction from AGI has been the topic of lots of arguments, but there is likewise the possibility that the advancement of AGI would cause a completely problematic future. Notably, it might be used to spread out and protect the set of worths of whoever establishes it. If humanity still has ethical blind areas similar to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, preventing moral development. [146] Furthermore, AGI might assist in mass security and indoctrination, which might be used to develop a stable repressive around the world totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is likewise a danger for the machines themselves. If devices that are sentient or otherwise worthy of ethical factor to consider are mass produced in the future, taking part in a civilizational course that indefinitely ignores their welfare and interests might be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering how much AGI could enhance humanity's future and help in reducing other existential threats, Toby Ord calls these existential threats "an argument for continuing with due care", not for "deserting AI". [147]
Risk of loss of control and human termination
The thesis that AI postures an existential risk for human beings, and that this danger requires more attention, is controversial however has actually been backed in 2023 by lots of 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 benefits and threats, the specialists are definitely doing whatever possible to make sure the very best result, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, 'We'll show up in a few years,' would we just reply, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is basically what is taking place with AI. [153]
The potential fate of humankind has actually in some cases been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The comparison states that higher intelligence allowed humanity to control gorillas, which are now vulnerable in ways that they could not have actually anticipated. As an outcome, the gorilla has ended up being an endangered species, not out of malice, but simply as a collateral damage from human activities. [154]
The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to dominate humankind which we ought to take care not to anthropomorphize them and analyze their intents as we would for human beings. He said that people will not be "clever sufficient to develop super-intelligent devices, yet ridiculously silly to the point of providing it moronic goals with no safeguards". [155] On the other side, the principle of important convergence suggests that nearly whatever their goals, smart agents will have factors to attempt to endure and get more power as intermediary steps to accomplishing these objectives. Which this does not require having feelings. [156]
Many scholars who are concerned about existential risk advocate for more research into solving the "control issue" to respond to the question: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers execute to increase the likelihood that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, instead of damaging, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is complicated by the AI arms race (which could lead to a race to the bottom of safety precautions in order to release items before competitors), [159] and the usage of AI in weapon systems. [160]
The thesis that AI can pose existential threat likewise has detractors. Skeptics normally state that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that concerns about AGI sidetrack from other concerns connected to existing AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for lots of people outside of the technology industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are already perceived as though they were AGI, leading to more misconception and worry. [162]
Skeptics often charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an unreasonable belief in the possibility of superintelligence changing an irrational belief in an omnipotent God. [163] Some scientists think that the communication projects on AI existential threat by certain AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might be an at attempt at regulatory capture and to inflate interest in their items. [164] [165]
In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, in addition to other industry leaders and scientists, provided a joint statement asserting that "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be an international top priority together with other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]
Mass joblessness
Researchers from OpenAI estimated that "80% of the U.S. labor force might have at least 10% of their work jobs affected by the introduction of LLMs, while around 19% of employees might see a minimum of 50% of their tasks affected". [166] [167] They consider office workers to be the most exposed, for instance mathematicians, accounting professionals or web designers. [167] AGI could have a much better autonomy, capability to make choices, to user interface with other computer system tools, however also to manage robotized bodies.
According to Stephen Hawking, the result of automation on the quality of life will depend on 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 badly poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby versus wealth redistribution. Up until now, the trend appears to be towards the second option, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality
Elon Musk thinks about that the automation of society will need governments to adopt a universal fundamental earnings. [168]
See also
Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities comparable to those of the animal or human brain
AI result
AI safety - Research location on making AI safe and helpful
AI alignment - AI conformance to the designated objective
A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža
Artificial intelligence
Automated maker knowing - Process of automating the application of maker knowing
BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research study effort announced by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre
General game playing - Ability of expert system to play various games
Generative expert system - AI system capable of creating material in reaction to triggers
Human Brain Project - Scientific research study project
Intelligence amplification - Use of infotech to enhance human intelligence (IA).
Machine principles - Moral behaviours of man-made makers.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task learning - Solving several device learning jobs at the same time.
Neural scaling law - Statistical law in maker knowing.
Outline of expert system - Overview of and topical guide to expert system.
Transhumanism - Philosophical motion.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or form of expert system.
Transfer learning - Artificial intelligence technique.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors.
Hardware for artificial intelligence - Hardware specially developed 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 meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the article Chinese room.
^ AI creator John McCarthy writes: "we can not yet define in general what type of computational procedures we desire to call smart. " [26] (For a conversation of some meanings of intelligence used by artificial intelligence scientists, see approach of expert system.).
^ The Lighthill report particularly criticized AI's "grand goals" and led the dismantling of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA ended up being determined to fund just "mission-oriented direct research, instead of fundamental undirected research study". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy writes "it would be a terrific relief to the rest of the workers in AI if the innovators of brand-new basic formalisms would express their hopes in a more guarded form than has actually often held true." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is utilized. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would approximately correspond to 1014 cps. Moravec talks in regards to MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil introduced.
^ As defined in a basic AI book: "The assertion that devices could perhaps act wisely (or, possibly much better, act as if they were smart) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that makers that do so are really believing (rather than mimicing thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References
^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is artificial narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is created to perform a single task.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to guarantee that synthetic general intelligence advantages all of humanity.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's brand-new objective is producing 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 Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D projects were identified 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 stops Google and alerts of risk ahead". The New York 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 reveals stimulates 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 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 genuine hazard is not AI itself but the method we release it.
^ "Impressed by artificial intelligence? Experts state AGI is following, and it has 'existential' threats". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI could posture existential risks to humankind.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The first superintelligence will be the last innovation that humanity needs to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. Mitigating the threat of termination from AI must be an international top priority.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts alert of risk of extinction from AI.
^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York Times. We are far from creating machines that can outthink us in general methods.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not present an existential danger". Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential danger.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the initial on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil describes strong AI as "maker intelligence with the full series of human intelligence.".
^ "The Age of Artificial Intelligence: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the initial on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they use for "human-level" intelligence in the physical sign system hypothesis.
^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the initial on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
^ "What is artificial superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Artificial intelligence is changing our world - it is on everybody to ensure that it works out". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to accomplishing 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 smart traits is based on the topics covered by major AI books, consisting of: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998.
^ Johnson 1987.
^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York City: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body shapes the way we believe: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reconsidered: The idea of proficiency". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reconsidered: The idea of competence". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the original on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the original on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What happens when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ "Eugene Goostman is a real boy - the Turing Test states so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ "Scientists dispute whether computer system 'Eugene Goostman' passed Turing test". BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). "People can not identify GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC]
^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI models like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing everything from the bar exam to AP Biology. Here's a list of tough tests both AI variations have actually passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Expert System 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 unreliable. The Winograd Schema is outdated. Coffee is the response". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder recommended evaluating an AI chatbot's capability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to determine human-like intelligence". Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). "Mustafa Suleyman: My new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Artificial Intelligence" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Expert System (Second ed.). New York: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".).
^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Specifying Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Expert System, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 22 May 2013.
^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". Stanford University Human-Centered Expert System. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50.
^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). "Artificial Intelligence, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the initial on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
^ Simon 1965, p. 96 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 ), estimated in Crevier (1993, p. 109).
^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994.
^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment".
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22.
^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see also 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 scientists and software engineers prevented the term expert system for worry 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 Technology an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the initial on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ "Who created the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., through Life 3.0: 'The term "AGI" was popularized by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel'
^ Wang & Goertzel 2007
^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summer school: June 22 - July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009". Archived from the initial on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 - зимен триместър" [Elective courses 2010/2011 - winter trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limitations of maker intelligence: Despite progress in maker intelligence, artificial general intelligence is still a significant obstacle". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs 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 monster". 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 artificial intelligence will not be understood". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1 ): 1-9. doi:10.1057/ s41599-020-0494-4. hdl:11250/ 2726984. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 219710554.
^ McCarthy 2007b.
^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (23 November 2015). "The Doomsday Invention: Will 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 development in synthetic intelligence: A survey of expert viewpoint. In Fundamental problems of synthetic intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.
^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, edited by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia
^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023.
^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The creativity of machines: AI takes the Torrance Test". Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185.
^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema.
^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). "Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024". Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
^ "Introducing OpenAI o1-preview". OpenAI. 12 September 2024.
^ Knight, Will. "OpenAI Announces a New AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024.
^ "OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved". Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024.
^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ "Next-Gen AI: OpenAI and Meta's Leap Towards Reasoning Machines". Unite.ai. 19 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ James, Alex P. (2022 ). "The Why, What, and How of Artificial General Intelligence Chip Development". IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. 14 (2 ): 333-347. arXiv:2012.06338. doi:10.1109/ TCDS.2021.3069871. ISSN 2379-8920. S2CID 228376556. Archived from the initial on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
^ Pei, Jing; Deng, Lei; Song, Sen; Zhao, Mingguo; Zhang, Youhui; Wu, Shuang; Wang, Guanrui; Zou, Zhe; Wu, Zhenzhi; He, Wei; Chen, Feng; Deng, Ning; Wu, Si; Wang, Yu; Wu, Yujie (2019 ). "Towards artificial general intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture". Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the initial on 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
^ Pandey, Mohit; Fernand
