Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of synthetic intelligence (AI) that matches or surpasses human cognitive capabilities throughout a wide variety of cognitive tasks. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is restricted to particular jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that significantly exceeds human cognitive abilities. AGI is thought about among the meanings of strong AI.

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

The timeline for achieving AGI stays a topic of continuous dispute among scientists and experts. Since 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or decades; others keep it might take a century or longer; a minority believe it might never ever be accomplished; and another minority declares that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has actually expressed issues about the rapid progress towards AGI, recommending it might be achieved quicker than numerous expect. [7]

There is debate on the exact meaning of AGI and regarding whether modern-day big language designs (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early forms of AGI. [8] AGI is a common topic in science fiction and futures studies. [9] [10]

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential threat. [11] [12] [13] Many professionals on AI have actually mentioned that alleviating the risk of human extinction positioned by AGI needs to be a global concern. [14] [15] Others find the advancement of AGI to be too remote to present such a danger. [16] [17]

Terminology

AGI is also understood as strong AI, [18] [19] complete AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level intelligent AI, or gdprhub.eu general intelligent action. [21]

Some academic sources schedule the term "strong AI" for computer system programs that experience sentience or awareness. [a] In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to fix one particular issue but does not have general cognitive capabilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources utilize "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the exact same sense as people. [a]

Related principles include synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical kind of AGI that is far more generally intelligent than people, [23] while the notion of transformative AI associates with AI having a large impact on society, for example, similar to the farming or industrial revolution. [24]

A framework for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They define five levels of AGI: emerging, proficient, specialist, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a proficient AGI is defined as an AI that surpasses 50% of proficient grownups in a vast array of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. a synthetic superintelligence) is similarly specified however with a limit of 100%. They consider big language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics

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

Intelligence qualities

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

factor, usage method, resolve puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability
represent understanding, consisting of good sense understanding
plan
find out
- interact in natural language
- if necessary, integrate these abilities in completion of any offered objective


Many interdisciplinary methods (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) think about additional characteristics such as imagination (the capability to form novel mental images and ideas) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that show a lot of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated thinking, choice support system, robotic, evolutionary calculation, smart representative). There is argument about whether contemporary AI systems possess them to an adequate degree.

Physical qualities

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

- the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on), and
- the ability to act (e.g. relocation and control objects, modification area to check out, and so on).


This includes the ability to find and react to hazard. [31]

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the ability to act (e.g. relocation and control items, modification area to check out, and so on) can be preferable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly needed for an entity to certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language models (LLMs) may currently be or become AGI. Even from a less optimistic perspective on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like kind; being a silicon-based computational system suffices, provided it can process input (language) from the external world in location of human senses. This interpretation lines up with the understanding that AGI has actually never ever been proscribed a particular physical embodiment and thus does not demand a capability for mobility or standard "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests indicated to verify human-level AGI have been considered, consisting of: [33] [34]

The idea of the test is that the maker has to try and pretend to be a guy, by answering questions put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is fairly convincing. A significant part of a jury, who must not be expert 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 thought that in order to solve it, one would need to carry out AGI, since the service is beyond the abilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]

There are lots of problems that have been conjectured to require general intelligence to fix as well as human beings. Examples include computer vision, natural language understanding, and handling unexpected situations while solving any real-world issue. [48] Even a specific job like translation needs a machine to read and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (reason), comprehend the context (knowledge), and faithfully replicate the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these issues require to be fixed at the same time in order to reach human-level maker performance.

However, a lot of these tasks can now be carried out by modern-day large language models. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has reached human-level efficiency on lots of criteria for reading understanding and visual reasoning. [49]

History

Classical AI

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

Their predictions were the motivation 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 job of making HAL 9000 as realistic as possible according to the consensus forecasts of the time. He stated in 1967, "Within a generation ... the issue of producing 'artificial intelligence' will substantially be resolved". [54]

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

However, in the early 1970s, it ended up being obvious that researchers had actually grossly undervalued the difficulty of the task. Funding agencies ended up being doubtful of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce beneficial "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 "bring on a casual discussion". [58] In reaction to this and the success of specialist systems, both industry and government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI stunningly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the objectives of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never fulfilled. [60] For the 2nd time in twenty years, AI researchers who anticipated the impending accomplishment of AGI had been mistaken. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a reputation for making vain guarantees. They became hesitant to make forecasts at all [d] and prevented 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 achieved industrial success and scholastic respectability by concentrating on particular sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable results and commercial applications, such as speech recognition and suggestion algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now used thoroughly throughout the technology market, and research study in this vein is greatly funded in both academia and industry. As of 2018 [update], development in this field was thought about an emerging trend, and a fully grown stage was anticipated to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]

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

I am confident that this bottom-up path to artificial intelligence will one day satisfy the traditional top-down path majority way, prepared to provide the real-world skills and the commonsense knowledge that has been so frustratingly evasive in thinking programs. Fully smart machines will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven joining the 2 efforts. [65]

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

The expectation has actually often been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way meet "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches someplace in between. If the grounding considerations in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is actually only one feasible 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 path (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we ought to even attempt to reach such a level, considering that it appears getting there would simply amount to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic meanings (consequently merely decreasing ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer system). [66]

Modern synthetic basic intelligence research

The term "artificial basic intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation of the ramifications of totally automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI agent maximises "the capability to satisfy objectives in a large range of environments". [68] This type of AGI, characterized by the ability to increase a mathematical meaning of intelligence rather than show human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal expert system. [70]

The term AGI was re-introduced and promoted by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research activity in 2006 was explained by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and initial outcomes". The very first summer school in AGI was arranged in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The very first university course was given up 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT presented a course on AGI in 2018, organized by Lex Fridman and including a variety of visitor lecturers.

As of 2023 [update], a little number of computer system scientists are active in AGI research, and numerous add to a series of AGI conferences. However, significantly more researchers have an interest in open-ended knowing, [76] [77] which is the concept of allowing AI to continually learn and innovate like people do.

Feasibility

As of 2023, the development and potential achievement of AGI remains a topic of extreme argument within the AI community. While traditional consensus held that AGI was a remote objective, recent advancements have actually led some scientists and industry figures to claim that early kinds of AGI may currently exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "devices 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 require "unforeseeable and fundamentally unforeseeable developments" and a "scientifically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield claimed the gulf between modern computing and human-level synthetic intelligence is as wide as the gulf in between current space flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

An additional challenge is the lack of clearness in specifying what intelligence entails. Does it need awareness? Must it show the capability to set objectives as well as pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are facilities such as planning, reasoning, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence require explicitly duplicating the brain and its particular professors? Does it require emotions? [81]

Most AI scientists think strong AI can be achieved in the future, but some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, reject the possibility of achieving strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who believe human-level AI will be achieved, but that today level of development is such that a date can not precisely be anticipated. [84] AI specialists' views on the expediency of AGI wax and wane. Four polls performed in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the mean price quote among specialists for when they would be 50% positive AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the experts, 16.5% addressed with "never" when asked the very same question but with a 90% self-confidence rather. [85] [86] Further present AGI development factors to consider can be found above Tests for confirming human-level AGI.

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

In 2023, Microsoft scientists released a detailed examination of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, our company believe that it could reasonably be seen as an early (yet still insufficient) version of an artificial basic intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outshines 99% of humans on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]

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

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

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

An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the business had accomplished AGI, mentioning, "In my viewpoint, we have actually currently accomplished AGI and it's even more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "much better than any human at any task", it is "better than many people at the majority of tasks." He likewise dealt with criticisms that big language models (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing process to the clinical technique of observing, assuming, and verifying. These statements have stimulated dispute, as they depend 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 amazing versatility, they may not completely fulfill this standard. Notably, Kazemi's remarks came shortly after OpenAI removed "AGI" from the regards to its collaboration with Microsoft, triggering speculation about the business's strategic intentions. [95]

Timescales

Progress in expert system has actually traditionally gone through durations of quick progress separated by durations when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were basic advances in hardware, software or both to create area for more development. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the hardware readily available in the twentieth century was not enough to implement deep knowing, which requires great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

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

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

In 2017, scientists Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu carried out 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 value of about 47, which corresponds roughly to a six-year-old child in first grade. An adult pertains to about 100 on average. Similar tests were performed in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching a maximum value of 27. [106] [107]

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

In the same year, Jason Rohrer used his GPT-3 account to establish a chatbot, and supplied a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested modifications to the chatbot to comply with 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 released a study on an early variation of OpenAI's GPT-4, competing that it showed more general intelligence than previous AI designs and demonstrated human-level efficiency in jobs spanning multiple domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study triggered an argument on whether GPT-4 could be considered an early, insufficient version of artificial basic intelligence, highlighting the requirement for more expedition and examination of such systems. [111]

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

The concept that this things might actually get smarter than people - a few individuals thought that, [...] But many people believed it was way off. And I believed it was way off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years and even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly stated that "The development in the last few years has been quite incredible", and that he sees no factor why it would slow down, anticipating AGI within a decade or even a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, stated his expectation that within five years, AI would can passing any test at least in addition to human beings. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI employee, estimated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably possible". [115]

Whole brain emulation

While the development of transformer models like in ChatGPT is considered the most appealing course to AGI, [116] [117] whole brain emulation can serve as an alternative technique. With entire brain simulation, a brain design is built by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and then copying and replicating it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation design must be adequately faithful to the initial, so that it behaves in almost the exact same method as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is gone over in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research functions. It has actually been talked about in expert system research [103] as a technique to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that could provide the essential comprehensive understanding are improving quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] predicts that a map of enough quality will appear on a similar timescale to the computing power required to imitate it.

Early approximates

For low-level brain simulation, a really powerful cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be required, given the enormous amount of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells has on average 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other nerve cells. The brain of a three-year-old kid has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number decreases with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates differ for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] An estimate of the brain's processing power, based upon a simple switch model for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at various price quotes for the hardware required to equal the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 computations per second (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "calculation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a step used to rate existing supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, achieved in 2011, while 1018 was accomplished in 2022.) He utilized this figure to anticipate the required hardware would be readily available sometime between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid growth in computer system power at the time of writing continued.

Current research

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

Criticisms of simulation-based approaches

The synthetic nerve cell design presumed by Kurzweil and utilized in numerous existing synthetic neural network implementations is basic compared with biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely need to catch the detailed cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, currently comprehended only in broad outline. The overhead presented by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical details of neural behaviour (especially on a molecular scale) would need computational powers a number of orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's quote. In addition, the quotes do not represent glial cells, which are understood to play a function in cognitive processes. [125]

A fundamental criticism of the simulated brain technique originates from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is a necessary element of human intelligence and is needed to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is appropriate, any completely practical brain model will require to include more than simply the nerve cells (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual embodiment (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an alternative, however it is unknown whether this would suffice.

Philosophical perspective

"Strong AI" as defined in viewpoint

In 1980, theorist John Searle coined the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese space argument. [128] He proposed a difference in between two hypotheses about synthetic intelligence: [f]

Strong AI hypothesis: An expert system system can have "a mind" and "awareness".
Weak AI hypothesis: An expert system system can (only) imitate it thinks and has a mind and consciousness.


The first one he called "strong" because it makes a more powerful statement: it presumes something unique has taken place to the device that exceeds those capabilities that we can test. The behaviour of a "weak AI" maker would be exactly identical to a "strong AI" machine, however the latter would likewise have subjective mindful experience. This usage is likewise common in scholastic AI research and textbooks. [129]

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

Mainstream AI is most interested in how a program acts. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they do not care if you call it real or a simulation." [130] If the program can act as if it has a mind, then there is no need to know if it in fact has mind - certainly, there would be no other way to inform. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is equivalent to the statement "synthetic general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for granted, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for scholastic AI research study, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have numerous meanings, and some elements play considerable roles in science fiction and the ethics of artificial intelligence:

Sentience (or "remarkable awareness"): The capability to "feel" perceptions or feelings subjectively, rather than the ability to factor about understandings. Some theorists, such as David Chalmers, utilize the term "awareness" to refer exclusively to remarkable consciousness, which is approximately comparable to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience arises is referred to as the hard issue of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel explained in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be conscious. If we are not conscious, then it does not seem like anything. Nagel uses the example of a bat: we can sensibly 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 seems mindful (i.e., has consciousness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually accomplished life, though this claim was widely contested by other specialists. [135]

Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a separate individual, especially to be consciously familiar with one's own ideas. This is opposed to merely being the "topic of one's thought"-an operating system or debugger is able to be "conscious of itself" (that is, to represent itself in the same method it represents everything else)-however this is not what individuals typically suggest when they use the term "self-awareness". [g]

These characteristics have an ethical measurement. AI life would provide increase to issues of welfare and legal defense, likewise to animals. [136] Other aspects of awareness related to cognitive capabilities are likewise pertinent to the idea of AI rights. [137] Finding out how to integrate sophisticated AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emerging issue. [138]

Benefits

AGI might have a broad variety of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI might help reduce numerous issues worldwide such as cravings, hardship and health issues. [139]

AGI might improve efficiency and effectiveness in most jobs. For example, in public health, AGI might accelerate medical research study, notably versus cancer. [140] It could look after the elderly, [141] and democratize access to quick, top quality medical diagnostics. It might offer enjoyable, inexpensive and individualized education. [141] The need to work to subsist might become obsolete if the wealth produced is correctly redistributed. [141] [142] This also raises the concern of the place of people in a significantly automated society.

AGI could likewise help to make logical decisions, and to expect and avoid disasters. It might likewise assist to profit of potentially catastrophic innovations such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while avoiding the associated dangers. [143] If an AGI's primary objective is to prevent existential disasters such as human termination (which could be tough if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be real), [144] it might take steps to dramatically minimize the dangers [143] while reducing the effect of these measures on our lifestyle.

Risks

Existential dangers

AGI may represent several kinds of existential threat, which are threats that threaten "the premature extinction of Earth-originating smart life or the irreversible and extreme destruction of its potential for preferable future development". [145] The danger of human extinction from AGI has been the topic of numerous disputes, but there is likewise the possibility that the development of AGI would cause a completely flawed future. Notably, it could be used to spread out and preserve the set of values of whoever develops it. If humankind still has ethical blind areas similar to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, avoiding ethical development. [146] Furthermore, AGI might help with mass surveillance and indoctrination, which could be utilized to develop a stable repressive around the world totalitarian regime. [147] [148] There is also a risk for the devices themselves. If machines that are sentient or otherwise worthy of moral consideration are mass developed in the future, engaging in a civilizational course that forever ignores their welfare and interests could be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI could enhance humanity's future and help minimize 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 extinction

The thesis that AI positions an existential threat for human beings, and that this risk requires more attention, is questionable however has actually been backed in 2023 by numerous public figures, AI researchers and CEOs of AI companies such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis and Sam Altman. [151] [152]

In 2014, Stephen Hawking slammed widespread indifference:

So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and dangers, the experts are certainly doing everything possible to guarantee the very best result, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message saying, 'We'll show up in a few decades,' would we simply reply, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is more or less what is happening with AI. [153]

The potential fate of mankind has actually sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast specifies that higher intelligence enabled humanity to control gorillas, which are now susceptible in manner ins which they could not have actually prepared for. As a result, the gorilla has actually ended up being an endangered species, not out of malice, but simply as a security damage from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun considers that AGIs will have no desire to control mankind which we ought to be cautious not to anthropomorphize them and analyze their intents as we would for humans. He stated that individuals will not be "wise sufficient to design super-intelligent makers, yet extremely dumb to the point of offering it moronic objectives without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the concept of critical convergence suggests that almost whatever their objectives, intelligent representatives will have reasons to try to endure and acquire more power as intermediary actions to achieving these objectives. Which this does not require having emotions. [156]

Many scholars who are concerned about existential risk supporter for more research study into fixing the "control problem" to answer the concern: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers carry out to maximise the likelihood that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, instead of destructive, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is complicated by the AI arms race (which might lead to a race to the bottom of security precautions in order to launch products before rivals), [159] and the use of AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can position existential threat also has critics. Skeptics usually say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI distract from other issues associated with current AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for many individuals outside of the technology market, existing chatbots and LLMs are already viewed as though they were AGI, causing further misconception and worry. [162]

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

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, together with other market leaders and researchers, provided a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI need to be a global concern together with other societal-scale threats such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]

Mass unemployment

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

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

Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or a lot of people can wind up miserably bad if the machine-owners successfully lobby versus wealth redistribution. Up until now, the pattern seems to be toward the 2nd option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

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

See also

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities similar to those of the animal or human brain
AI effect
AI safety - Research area on making AI safe and useful
AI alignment - AI conformance to the desired goal
A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža
Expert system
Automated artificial intelligence - Process of automating the application of device knowing
BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research effort revealed by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre
General video game playing - Ability of artificial intelligence to play various video games
Generative artificial intelligence - AI system capable of creating material in action to prompts
Human Brain Project - Scientific research task
Intelligence amplification - Use of info technology to augment human intelligence (IA).
Machine principles - Moral behaviours of man-made devices.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task learning - Solving multiple maker learning tasks at the exact same time.
Neural scaling law - Statistical law in artificial intelligence.
Outline of synthetic intelligence - Overview of and topical guide to artificial intelligence.
Transhumanism - Philosophical motion.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or kind of expert system.
Transfer learning - Machine learning strategy.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors.
Hardware for artificial intelligence - Hardware specifically designed and optimized for expert system.
Weak artificial intelligence - Form of expert system.


Notes

^ a b See below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the scholastic meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the article Chinese room.
^ AI creator John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet characterize in basic what kinds of computational procedures we wish to call intelligent. " [26] (For a discussion of some definitions of intelligence utilized by artificial intelligence researchers, see approach of expert system.).
^ The Lighthill report particularly slammed AI's "grandiose goals" and led the dismantling of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became identified to fund just "mission-oriented direct research, instead of standard undirected research study". [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy composes "it would be a terrific relief to the remainder of the employees in AI if the creators of new general formalisms would express their hopes in a more protected type than has sometimes been the case." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented.
^ As specified in a basic AI textbook: "The assertion that makers might perhaps act smartly (or, possibly much better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by philosophers, and yewiki.org the assertion that devices that do so are in fact 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 artificial narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is developed to perform a single task.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to make sure that synthetic general intelligence advantages all of humankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's new goal is producing artificial 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 determined 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 pioneer Geoffrey Hinton gives up Google and cautions of risk ahead". The New York City Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is tough 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 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 change. All that you change modifications you.
^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming.
^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Artificial Intelligence". The New York City Times. The genuine threat is not AI itself but the method we release it.
^ "Impressed by artificial intelligence? Experts say AGI is following, and it has 'existential' dangers". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI could posture existential dangers 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 development that humankind needs to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. Mitigating the danger of termination from AI must be an international priority.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI professionals alert of threat of termination from AI.
^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York City Times. We are far from creating devices 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 danger.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the initial on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil explains strong AI as "maker intelligence with the complete variety of human intelligence.".
^ "The Age of Expert System: 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 utilize for "human-level" intelligence in the physical sign system hypothesis.
^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the original on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
^ "What is 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 goes well". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to achieving AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat.
^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of intelligent characteristics is based upon the topics covered by significant AI books, including: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998.
^ Johnson 1987.
^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body forms the way we think: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The concept of skills". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: The concept of proficiency". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the initial on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the original on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What occurs when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ "Eugene Goostman is a real boy - the Turing Test says so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ "Scientists dispute whether computer 'Eugene Goostman' passed Turing test". BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). "People can not identify GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC]
^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI models like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing whatever from the bar examination to AP Biology. Here's a list of hard examinations both AI variations 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 Take Advantage Of 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 outdated. Coffee is the answer". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder recommended checking 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 Defining Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Artificial Intelligence, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the original 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 initial on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
^ Simon 1965, p. 96 estimated in Crevier 1993, p. 109.
^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008.
^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), estimated in Crevier (1993, p. 109).
^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994.
^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment".
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22.
^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see 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 ). "Reply to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007.
^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). "Behind Expert system, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York City Times. Archived from the initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system researchers and software application engineers prevented the term expert system for worry of being deemed 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 Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the 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 Science. 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 initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limits of machine intelligence: Despite progress in maker intelligence, artificial basic intelligence is still a major challenge". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early 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 turn into 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