Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a kind of artificial intelligence (AI) that matches or surpasses human cognitive capabilities throughout a wide variety of cognitive tasks. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to specific jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that considerably goes beyond human cognitive abilities. AGI is thought about one of the definitions of strong AI.

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

The timeline for attaining AGI remains a topic of continuous debate among scientists and specialists. Since 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or decades; others keep it may take a century or longer; a minority think it might never ever be attained; and another minority declares that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has revealed concerns about the fast development towards AGI, recommending it might be achieved sooner than many anticipate. [7]

There is argument on the specific definition of AGI and relating to whether contemporary big language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early forms of AGI. [8] AGI is a typical subject in science fiction and futures research studies. [9] [10]

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

Terminology

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

Some scholastic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience sentience or awareness. [a] In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to fix one particular issue but lacks basic cognitive abilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources utilize "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the same sense as people. [a]

Related concepts include synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical type of AGI that is far more typically intelligent than people, [23] while the idea of transformative AI relates to AI having a big effect on society, for instance, similar to the agricultural or industrial transformation. [24]

A framework for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They define five levels of AGI: emerging, qualified, professional, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a skilled AGI is defined as an AI that outperforms 50% of experienced adults in a large range of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is similarly defined however with a threshold of 100%. They think about large language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics

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

Intelligence qualities

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

reason, usage technique, fix puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability
represent knowledge, consisting of common sense knowledge
plan
discover
- interact in natural language
- if needed, incorporate these abilities in completion of any given objective


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

Computer-based systems that show a lot of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated thinking, choice support group, robot, evolutionary computation, smart representative). There is argument about whether contemporary AI systems have them to an adequate degree.

Physical characteristics

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

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


This includes the ability to spot and react to threat. [31]

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc) and the ability to act (e.g. move and control things, modification area to explore, and so on) can be desirable for some smart systems, [30] these physical abilities are not strictly needed for an entity to certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language designs (LLMs) might already be or end up being AGI. Even from a less optimistic perspective on LLMs, there is no company requirement for an AGI to have a human-like type; 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 specific physical embodiment and hence does not require a capacity for locomotion or traditional "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests suggested to validate human-level AGI have been thought about, consisting of: [33] [34]

The concept of the test is that the device needs to attempt and pretend to be a male, by responding to questions put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is reasonably persuading. A significant portion of a jury, who ought to not be professional about machines, must be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete problems

An issue is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is believed that in order to fix it, one would need to implement AGI, due to the fact that the service is beyond the abilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]

There are lots of issues that have been conjectured to need general intelligence to solve in addition to humans. Examples consist of computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unanticipated circumstances while solving any real-world problem. [48] Even a specific job like translation needs a device to read and write in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), understand the context (knowledge), and faithfully recreate the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these issues need to be resolved concurrently in order to reach human-level device performance.

However, numerous of these tasks can now be performed by modern large language models. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has actually reached human-level efficiency on lots of benchmarks for reading understanding and visual thinking. [49]

History

Classical AI

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

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

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

However, in the early 1970s, it became apparent that scientists had grossly ignored the trouble of the task. Funding agencies became hesitant of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce helpful "applied 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 objectives like "carry on a table talk". [58] In action to this and the success of professional systems, both market 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 satisfied. [60] For the second time in twenty years, AI scientists who forecasted the impending accomplishment of AGI had actually been mistaken. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a credibility for making vain promises. They ended up being hesitant to make predictions at all [d] and prevented mention of "human level" artificial intelligence for fear of being identified "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI achieved business success and academic respectability by concentrating on specific sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable outcomes and industrial applications, such as speech acknowledgment and suggestion algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now used extensively throughout the innovation industry, and research study in this vein is heavily moneyed in both academic community and market. As of 2018 [upgrade], development in this field was considered an emerging trend, and a mature phase was expected to be reached in more than ten years. [64]

At the millenium, lots of traditional AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI could be developed by combining programs that solve different sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:

I am confident that this bottom-up path to synthetic intelligence will one day meet the standard top-down path more than half method, ready to supply the real-world competence and the commonsense knowledge that has actually been so frustratingly evasive in reasoning programs. Fully intelligent machines will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven uniting 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 stating:

The expectation has actually often been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow meet "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding considerations in this paper are valid, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is really only one feasible route from sense to symbols: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software application level of a computer system will never be reached by this route (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we ought to even try to reach such a level, considering that it appears arriving would just total up to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic meanings (thus merely reducing ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]

Modern artificial general intelligence research study

The term "synthetic basic intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a discussion of the implications of totally automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI agent maximises "the ability to satisfy goals in a vast array of environments". [68] This kind of AGI, defined by the ability to maximise a mathematical meaning of intelligence rather than display human-like behaviour, [69] was likewise called universal expert system. [70]

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

Since 2023 [upgrade], a little number of computer system scientists are active in AGI research, and lots of contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, progressively more scientists are interested in open-ended knowing, [76] [77] which is the concept of permitting AI to continuously learn and innovate like humans do.

Feasibility

As of 2023, the advancement and prospective accomplishment of AGI remains a subject of intense dispute within the AI neighborhood. While standard agreement held that AGI was a remote objective, current developments have actually led some researchers and industry figures to claim that early types of AGI may already exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon hypothesized in 1965 that "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do". This forecast failed to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century due to the fact that it would need "unforeseeable and essentially unpredictable developments" and a "clinically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield claimed the gulf between modern computing and human-level expert system is as large as the gulf in between existing space flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A further obstacle is the lack of clearness in defining what intelligence requires. Does it need awareness? Must it show the ability to set goals in addition to pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are facilities such as preparation, thinking, and causal understanding needed? Does intelligence need clearly duplicating the brain and its particular professors? Does it require emotions? [81]

Most AI scientists think strong AI can be attained in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, reject the possibility of accomplishing strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who believe human-level AI will be accomplished, but that the present level of development is such that a date can not accurately be forecasted. [84] AI experts' views on the feasibility of AGI wax and subside. Four polls carried out in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the typical price quote among specialists for when they would be 50% confident AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the professionals, 16.5% answered with "never ever" when asked the same concern but with a 90% confidence instead. [85] [86] Further existing AGI development considerations can be found above Tests for verifying 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 prediction was made". They evaluated 95 forecasts made in between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]

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

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig wrote in 2023 that a substantial level of general intelligence has actually currently been achieved with frontier designs. They composed that hesitation to this view comes from 4 main factors: a "healthy suspicion about metrics for AGI", an "ideological commitment to alternative AI theories or strategies", a "devotion to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "issue about the financial implications of AGI". [91]

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

In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the first of a series of designs that "invest more time believing before they respond". According to Mira Murati, this ability to believe before responding represents a brand-new, extra paradigm. It improves model outputs by investing more computing power when creating the response, whereas the design scaling paradigm enhances outputs by increasing the design size, training data and training compute power. [93] [94]

An OpenAI employee, Vahid Kazemi, claimed in 2024 that the company had actually attained AGI, specifying, "In my opinion, we have currently accomplished AGI and it's even more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "better than any human at any job", it is "much better than the majority of human beings at a lot of tasks." He also resolved criticisms that big language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing procedure to the clinical technique of observing, assuming, and verifying. These declarations have actually triggered dispute, as they depend on a broad and unconventional meaning of AGI-traditionally understood as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models demonstrate remarkable flexibility, they may not completely meet this standard. Notably, Kazemi's remarks came soon after OpenAI got rid of "AGI" from the terms of its collaboration with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the business's tactical intentions. [95]

Timescales

Progress in synthetic intelligence has historically gone through durations of fast development separated by durations when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were basic advances in hardware, software or both to produce space for additional progress. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the computer hardware available in the twentieth century was not sufficient to implement deep learning, which needs large numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the intro to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel says that price quotes of the time needed before a genuinely flexible AGI is developed vary from 10 years to over a century. Since 2007 [update], the agreement in the AGI research community seemed to be that the timeline gone over by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have actually provided a vast array of opinions on whether progress will be this fast. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions discovered a predisposition towards predicting that the beginning of AGI would occur within 16-26 years for contemporary and historic forecasts alike. That paper has actually been criticized for how it classified viewpoints as professional 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 error rate of 15.3%, significantly much better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the conventional approach used a weighted sum of scores from various pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered the initial ground-breaker of the present deep learning wave. [105]

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

In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language model capable of performing lots of varied 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 thought about by some to be too advanced to be categorized as a narrow AI system. [108]

In the same year, Jason Rohrer used his GPT-3 account to establish a chatbot, and provided a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI asked for modifications to the chatbot to comply with 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 various jobs. [110]

In 2023, Microsoft Research released a research study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it exhibited more basic intelligence than previous AI models and showed human-level performance in tasks spanning several domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study stimulated a debate on whether GPT-4 might be considered an early, insufficient version of synthetic general intelligence, highlighting the need for additional expedition and assessment of such systems. [111]

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

The concept that this things could in fact get smarter than people - a couple of individuals believed that, [...] But many people believed it was method off. And I thought it was way off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years or perhaps 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 amazing", which he sees no reason why it would decrease, anticipating AGI within a years or perhaps a couple of years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, mentioned his expectation that within 5 years, AI would can passing any test a minimum of as well as people. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI staff member, estimated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably possible". [115]

Whole brain emulation

While the advancement of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is thought about the most appealing path to AGI, [116] [117] whole brain emulation can work as an alternative method. With entire brain simulation, a brain model is constructed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and then copying and simulating it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation model must be adequately faithful to the initial, so that it acts in almost the same method as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a type of brain simulation that is talked about in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research purposes. It has been talked about in expert system research [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that could deliver the necessary in-depth understanding are improving quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] forecasts that a map of enough quality will appear on a comparable timescale to the computing power required to imitate it.

Early approximates

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

In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at numerous estimates for the hardware needed to equate to the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 computations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a "calculation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a procedure used to rate current supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was accomplished in 2022.) He utilized this figure to predict the required hardware would be readily available at some point in between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential development in computer system power at the time of composing continued.

Current research study

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded initiative active from 2013 to 2023, has actually established a particularly in-depth and publicly 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 current synthetic neural network implementations is easy compared to biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely need to catch the in-depth cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, currently understood only in broad summary. The overhead presented by complete modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (particularly on a molecular scale) would need computational powers several orders of magnitude bigger than Kurzweil's quote. In addition, the quotes do not represent glial cells, which are understood to contribute in cognitive procedures. [125]

A fundamental criticism of the simulated brain approach originates from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is an essential element of human intelligence and is necessary to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is proper, any fully functional brain design will need to incorporate 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 be sufficient.

Philosophical viewpoint

"Strong AI" as specified in philosophy

In 1980, philosopher John Searle created the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese space argument. [128] He proposed a distinction between 2 hypotheses about artificial intelligence: [f]

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


The very first one he called "strong" because it makes a stronger statement: it assumes something special has happened to the machine that surpasses those capabilities that we can test. The behaviour of a "weak AI" maker would be precisely identical to a "strong AI" device, but the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This usage is also typical in academic AI research study and books. [129]

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

Mainstream AI is most interested in how a program 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 act as if it has a mind, then there is no need to understand if it actually has mind - indeed, there would be no chance to tell. For AI research study, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is comparable to the declaration "synthetic general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI scientists take the weak AI hypothesis for given, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 different things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have numerous significances, and some aspects play significant roles in sci-fi and the ethics of synthetic intelligence:

Sentience (or "sensational awareness"): The ability to "feel" perceptions or emotions subjectively, instead of the ability to factor about perceptions. Some theorists, such as David Chalmers, use the term "consciousness" to refer solely to sensational consciousness, which is roughly comparable to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience emerges is referred to as the difficult problem of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel explained in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be conscious. If we are not mindful, then it does not seem like anything. Nagel utilizes 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 seem like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat appears to be mindful (i.e., has consciousness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the company's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually achieved sentience, though this claim was commonly contested by other professionals. [135]

Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a separate person, especially to be knowingly conscious of one's own ideas. This is opposed to simply being the "subject of one's believed"-an operating system or debugger has the ability to be "aware of itself" (that is, to represent itself in the same method it represents whatever else)-but this is not what people normally mean when they use the term "self-awareness". [g]

These traits have an ethical dimension. AI life would offer rise to issues of welfare and legal protection, similarly to animals. [136] Other elements of consciousness related to cognitive abilities are also appropriate to the concept of AI rights. [137] Finding out how to incorporate innovative AI with existing legal and social structures is an emergent problem. [138]

Benefits

AGI could have a wide range of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI could help reduce various problems in the world such as cravings, poverty and health issue. [139]

AGI could enhance productivity and efficiency in many jobs. For example, in public health, AGI might accelerate medical research, especially against cancer. [140] It might take care of the elderly, [141] and equalize access to fast, high-quality medical diagnostics. It could offer fun, low-cost and individualized 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 location of human beings in a radically automated society.

AGI could also help to make logical decisions, and to expect and prevent disasters. It could also help to profit of potentially devastating technologies such as nanotechnology or environment engineering, while preventing the associated dangers. [143] If an AGI's main objective is to avoid existential catastrophes such as human extinction (which might be hard if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being true), [144] it could take procedures to considerably reduce the dangers [143] while reducing the impact of these steps on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential risks

AGI may represent several types of existential threat, which are threats that threaten "the early extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or the irreversible and drastic damage of its potential for desirable future advancement". [145] The risk of human termination from AGI has been the topic of lots of disputes, but there is also the possibility that the advancement of AGI would lead to a completely flawed future. Notably, it could be used to spread and maintain the set of worths of whoever establishes it. If humanity still has moral blind spots similar to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, preventing ethical development. [146] Furthermore, AGI might assist in mass security and indoctrination, which could be used to produce a steady repressive around the world totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is also a danger for the devices themselves. If makers that are sentient or otherwise deserving of moral factor to consider are mass developed in the future, participating in a civilizational path that forever overlooks their well-being and interests could be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI might improve mankind's future and help in reducing other existential risks, Toby Ord calls these existential threats "an argument for proceeding with due care", not for "abandoning AI". [147]

Risk of loss of control and human extinction

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

In 2014, Stephen Hawking criticized prevalent indifference:

So, facing possible futures of incalculable advantages and threats, the experts are undoubtedly doing whatever possible to ensure the finest result, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll arrive in a couple of decades,' would we just respond, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is basically what is occurring with AI. [153]

The possible fate of mankind has often been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast specifies that higher intelligence allowed humankind to control gorillas, which are now susceptible in ways that they could not have actually prepared for. As an outcome, the gorilla has actually ended up being an endangered types, not out of malice, but merely as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to dominate humankind and that we ought to be mindful not to anthropomorphize them and interpret their intents as we would for people. He said that individuals won't be "smart adequate to create super-intelligent devices, yet extremely foolish to the point of giving it moronic goals without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the idea of crucial convergence suggests that almost whatever their goals, smart agents will have reasons to attempt to make it through and get more power as intermediary steps to accomplishing these objectives. Which this does not require having feelings. [156]

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

The thesis that AI can present existential threat likewise has detractors. Skeptics typically say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI sidetrack from other issues associated with existing AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for lots of people outside of the technology market, existing chatbots and LLMs are already perceived as though they were AGI, causing additional misunderstanding and worry. [162]

Skeptics sometimes charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an illogical belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an irrational belief in an omnipotent God. [163] Some researchers believe that the interaction campaigns on AI existential risk by particular AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might be an at attempt at regulative capture and to pump up interest in their items. [164] [165]

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, in addition to other market leaders and researchers, provided a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the danger of extinction from AI need to be a worldwide concern along 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 could have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the introduction of LLMs, while around 19% of workers may see at least 50% of their tasks impacted". [166] [167] They consider workplace employees to be the most exposed, for instance mathematicians, accountants or web designers. [167] AGI could have a better autonomy, ability to make choices, to interface with other computer tools, but likewise to control robotized bodies.

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

Everyone can delight in a life of elegant leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or many people can wind up miserably poor if the machine-owners effectively lobby versus wealth redistribution. So far, the pattern appears to be toward the 2nd option, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality

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

See likewise

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities comparable to those of the animal or human brain
AI effect
AI safety - Research area on making AI safe and advantageous
AI alignment - AI conformance to the desired objective
A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža
Artificial intelligence
Automated artificial intelligence - 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 study centre
General game playing - Ability of artificial intelligence to play various games
Generative artificial intelligence - AI system efficient in producing material in response to prompts
Human Brain Project - Scientific research study task
Intelligence amplification - Use of info technology to augment human intelligence (IA).
Machine principles - Moral behaviours of man-made machines.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task knowing - Solving multiple machine learning jobs at the exact same time.
Neural scaling law - Statistical law in artificial intelligence.
Outline of synthetic intelligence - Overview of and topical guide to expert system.
Transhumanism - Philosophical motion.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or type of expert system.
Transfer learning - Machine knowing technique.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors.
Hardware for artificial intelligence - Hardware specifically created and enhanced for artificial intelligence.
Weak expert system - Form of expert system.


Notes

^ a b See below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the scholastic definition of "strong AI" and weak AI in the post Chinese room.
^ AI creator John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet identify in basic what type of computational treatments we want to call smart. " [26] (For a discussion of some meanings of intelligence utilized by synthetic intelligence researchers, see approach of expert system.).
^ The Lighthill report specifically criticized AI's "grandiose goals" and led the taking apart of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA ended up being identified to fund only "mission-oriented direct research, rather than standard undirected research study". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy writes "it would be a fantastic relief to the remainder of the employees in AI if the inventors of brand-new general formalisms would express their hopes in a more secured form than has often been the case." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is utilized. More just recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would approximately correspond to 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented.
^ As specified in a standard AI textbook: "The assertion that machines could possibly act intelligently (or, maybe much better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by thinkers, and the assertion that machines that do so are really thinking (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 carry out a single task.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our objective is to guarantee that artificial basic intelligence benefits all of mankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's brand-new objective is creating synthetic general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to construct AI that is much better than human-level at all of the human senses.
^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D jobs were recognized as being active in 2020.
^ a b c "AI timelines: What do specialists in artificial intelligence expect 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 quits Google and alerts of danger ahead". The New York City Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is hard to see how you can prevent the bad stars from utilizing it for bad things.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 shows 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 changes you.
^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming.
^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Expert System". The New York Times. The real threat is not AI itself but the way we deploy it.
^ "Impressed by synthetic intelligence? Experts state AGI is coming next, and it has 'existential' dangers". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI could present existential dangers to mankind.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The very first superintelligence will be the last invention that humankind needs to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. Mitigating the danger of termination from AI ought to be an international priority.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts caution of danger of termination from AI.
^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York Times. We are far from producing machines that can outthink us in basic methods.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not provide an existential danger". Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential hazard.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the initial on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil describes strong AI as "machine intelligence with the complete variety of human intelligence.".
^ "The Age of Artificial Intelligence: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the initial on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they utilize for "human-level" intelligence in the physical symbol 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 transforming our world - it is on everybody to make sure that it goes well". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to achieving AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat.
^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of intelligent characteristics is based upon the subjects covered by major AI books, including: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998.
^ Johnson 1987.
^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York City: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body forms the way we think: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: 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 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 takes place when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ "Eugene Goostman is a genuine young boy - the Turing Test states 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 everything from the bar exam to AP Biology. Here's a list of hard exams both AI versions have actually passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Artificial Intelligence Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Profit From It". Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is undependable. The Winograd Schema is obsolete. Coffee is the 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 measure human-like intelligence". Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). "Mustafa Suleyman: My brand-new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Expert System" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (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). Artificial Intelligence, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 22 May 2013.
^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50.
^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). "Artificial Intelligence, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the 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 ), priced quote in Crevier (1993, p. 109).
^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994.
^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment".
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22.
^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see 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 Artificial Intelligence, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York City Times. Archived from the original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system scientists and software application engineers prevented the term artificial intelligence for fear of being considered as wild-eyed dreamers.
^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26
^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the initial on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20
^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300.
^ Gubrud 1997
^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer 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 original on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ "Who coined the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., through Life 3.0: 'The term "AGI" was popularized by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel'
^ Wang & Goertzel 2007
^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summer season school: June 22 - July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009". Archived from the initial on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 - зимен триместър" [Elective courses 2010/2011 - winter season trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limits of maker intelligence: Despite progress in machine intelligence, artificial general 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 explores GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ "Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing "Sparks" of AGI". Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023.
^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). "The Singularity Isn't Near". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Winfield, Alan. "Artificial intelligence will not turn into a Frankenstein's monster". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 17 September 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Deane, George (2022 ). "Machines That Feel and Think: The Role of Affective Feelings and Mental Action in (Artificial) General Intelligence". Artificial Life. 28 (3 ): 289-309. doi:10.1162/ artl_a_00368. ISSN 1064-5462. PMID 35881678. S2CID 251069071.
^ a b c Clocksin 2003.
^ Fjelland, Ragnar (17 June 2020). "Why general expert system will not be realized". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1 ): 1-9. doi:10.1057/ s41599-020-0494-4. hdl:11250/ 2726984. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 219710554.
^ McCarthy 2007b.
^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (23 November 2015). "The Doomsday Invention: Will synthetic intelligence bring us utopia or destruction?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom,