Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of synthetic intelligence (AI) that matches or goes beyond human cognitive capabilities across a wide range 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 goes beyond human cognitive abilities. AGI is thought about among the meanings of strong AI.
Creating AGI is a primary goal of AI research study and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 survey determined 72 active AGI research and development projects throughout 37 countries. [4]
The timeline for achieving AGI remains a topic of ongoing debate among researchers and experts. Since 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or photorum.eclat-mauve.fr decades; others keep it might take a century or longer; a minority believe it may never ever be achieved; and another minority claims that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton has revealed issues about the fast progress towards AGI, suggesting it might be achieved earlier than lots of anticipate. [7]
There is debate on the specific meaning of AGI and concerning whether modern-day big language designs (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early types 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 professionals on AI have mentioned that mitigating the danger of human termination postured by AGI ought to be a global concern. [14] [15] Others discover the advancement of AGI to be too remote to provide such a threat. [16] [17]
Terminology
AGI is likewise known as strong AI, [18] [19] full AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level smart AI, or basic intelligent action. [21]
Some academic sources schedule the term "strong AI" for computer system programs that experience life or awareness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) has the ability to solve one particular problem however lacks general cognitive abilities. [22] [19] Some scholastic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the very same sense as humans. [a]
Related concepts consist of artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical kind of AGI that is a lot more typically smart than human beings, [23] while the idea of transformative AI connects to AI having a large influence on society, for instance, comparable to the agricultural or commercial revolution. [24]
A framework for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They specify 5 levels of AGI: emerging, proficient, professional, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a qualified AGI is defined as an AI that surpasses 50% of competent adults in a wide variety of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. a synthetic superintelligence) is likewise defined but with a threshold of 100%. They think about large language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]
Characteristics
Various popular meanings of intelligence have been proposed. Among the leading propositions is the Turing test. However, there are other widely known definitions, and some scientists disagree with the more popular techniques. [b]
Intelligence characteristics
Researchers normally hold that intelligence is needed to do all of the following: [27]
factor, usage method, resolve puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability
represent understanding, including good sense understanding
plan
find out
- interact in natural language
- if necessary, incorporate these abilities in conclusion of any offered objective
Many interdisciplinary techniques (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) consider extra traits such as creativity (the capability to form novel mental images and concepts) [28] and autonomy. [29]
Computer-based systems that display many of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, historydb.date automated thinking, decision support group, robotic, evolutionary computation, smart agent). There is debate about whether modern-day AI systems have them to a sufficient degree.
Physical traits
Other abilities are considered desirable in intelligent systems, as they might affect intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: [30]
- the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and
- the ability to act (e.g. move and manipulate things, change area to explore, and so on).
This includes the capability to identify and respond to danger. [31]
Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc) and the ability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate items, modification area to check out, and so on) can be desirable for some smart systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly needed for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language models (LLMs) may already be or end up being 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 place of human senses. This interpretation aligns with the understanding that AGI has never been proscribed a particular physical embodiment and hence does not demand a capacity for locomotion or standard "eyes and ears". [32]
Tests for human-level AGI
Several tests implied to validate human-level AGI have actually been thought about, consisting of: [33] [34]
The idea of the test is that the machine needs to try and pretend to be a male, by answering concerns put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is fairly convincing. A significant portion of a jury, who should not be expert 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 thought that in order to fix it, one would require to implement AGI, due to the fact that the service is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]
There are many problems that have been conjectured to need general intelligence to resolve along with people. Examples include computer system vision, natural language understanding, and handling unforeseen situations while resolving any real-world problem. [48] Even a specific task like translation requires a maker to check out and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), comprehend the context (understanding), and consistently replicate the author's initial intent (social intelligence). All of these issues need to be solved simultaneously in order to reach human-level device performance.
However, much of these jobs can now be carried out by contemporary big language models. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has actually reached human-level efficiency on many standards for reading comprehension and visual reasoning. [49]
History
Classical AI
Modern AI research study began in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI scientists were persuaded that artificial general intelligence was possible and that it would exist in just a couple of years. [51] AI leader Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man 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 produce by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was a consultant [53] on the job of making HAL 9000 as realistic as possible according to the agreement predictions of the time. He stated in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of producing 'artificial intelligence' will substantially be resolved". [54]
Several classical AI tasks, such as Doug Lenat's Cyc job (that began in 1984), and Allen Newell's Soar job, were directed at AGI.
However, in the early 1970s, it became obvious that researchers had grossly underestimated the problem of the job. Funding firms became doubtful of AGI and put scientists under increasing pressure to produce useful "used AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project revived interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that consisted of AGI goals like "continue a table talk". [58] In action to this and the success of professional systems, both industry and government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, self-confidence in AI stunningly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever satisfied. [60] For the 2nd time in 20 years, AI scientists who forecasted the imminent accomplishment of AGI had been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a track record for making vain promises. They ended up being unwilling to make forecasts at all [d] and avoided mention of "human level" synthetic intelligence for worry of being identified "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]
Narrow AI research study
In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI accomplished industrial success and academic respectability by concentrating on specific sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable results and business applications, such as speech acknowledgment and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now used thoroughly throughout the technology industry, and research in this vein is greatly funded in both academia and industry. As of 2018 [update], development in this field was considered an emerging pattern, and a fully grown stage was anticipated to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]
At the turn of the century, numerous traditional AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI might be developed by integrating programs that fix different sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:
I am positive that this bottom-up route to artificial intelligence will one day fulfill the standard top-down route majority method, all set to offer the real-world skills and the commonsense knowledge that has actually been so frustratingly evasive in thinking programs. Fully intelligent devices will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven unifying the two efforts. [65]
However, even at the time, this was disputed. For example, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the symbol grounding hypothesis by mentioning:
The expectation has actually often been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way satisfy "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is really just one feasible path from sense to signs: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software level of a computer system will never ever be reached by this path (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we ought to even attempt to reach such a level, because it looks as if arriving would simply amount to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic significances (therefore merely reducing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer system). [66]
Modern artificial general intelligence research study
The term "synthetic general intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a discussion of the implications of fully automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI representative maximises "the ability to satisfy objectives in a wide range of environments". [68] This type of AGI, defined by the ability to increase a mathematical meaning of intelligence rather than exhibit human-like behaviour, [69] was likewise 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 described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and preliminary outcomes". The very first summer season school in AGI was organized in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The first university course was offered in 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT provided a course on AGI in 2018, arranged by Lex Fridman and including a number of guest speakers.
As of 2023 [update], a small number of computer scientists are active in AGI research, and numerous add to a series of AGI conferences. However, progressively more researchers have an interest in open-ended knowing, [76] [77] which is the concept of permitting AI to continually find out and innovate like human beings do.
Feasibility
Since 2023, the development and prospective achievement of AGI remains a topic of extreme argument within the AI community. While standard agreement held that AGI was a distant objective, recent improvements have actually led some researchers and industry figures to claim that early forms of AGI might already exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do". This prediction 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 require "unforeseeable and basically unpredictable advancements" and a "clinically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf in between modern-day computing and human-level expert system is as large as the gulf between current area flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]
A more challenge is the absence of clearness in specifying what intelligence requires. Does it need awareness? Must it display the capability to set objectives as well as pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are facilities such as preparation, reasoning, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence need clearly replicating the brain and its specific faculties? Does it require emotions? [81]
Most AI researchers believe strong AI can be accomplished in the future, but some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of achieving strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who think human-level AI will be accomplished, but that the present level of development is such that a date can not accurately be anticipated. [84] AI professionals' views on the feasibility of AGI wax and subside. Four polls carried out in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the median estimate amongst specialists for when they would be 50% confident AGI would get here was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the poll, with the mean being 2081. Of the specialists, 16.5% addressed with "never ever" when asked the same question however with a 90% confidence rather. [85] [86] Further present AGI progress factors to consider 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 predicting the arrival of human-level AI as between 15 and 25 years from the time the prediction was made". They analyzed 95 predictions made between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]
In 2023, Microsoft scientists published an in-depth evaluation of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we think that it could reasonably be deemed an early (yet still insufficient) version of a synthetic general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another research study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outshines 99% of people 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 already been attained with frontier models. They wrote that reluctance to this view comes from four main factors: a "healthy skepticism about metrics for AGI", an "ideological commitment to alternative AI theories or strategies", a "commitment to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "issue about the financial ramifications of AGI". [91]
2023 also marked the introduction of large multimodal models (big language models efficient in processing or generating multiple methods such as text, audio, and images). [92]
In 2024, OpenAI launched o1-preview, the very first of a series of models that "invest more time believing before they react". According to Mira Murati, this capability to believe before reacting represents a brand-new, extra paradigm. It enhances model outputs by investing more computing power when creating the answer, whereas the design scaling paradigm improves outputs by increasing the model size, training data and training calculate power. [93] [94]
An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the business had achieved AGI, stating, "In my viewpoint, we have actually already accomplished AGI and it's much more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "better than any human at any task", it is "much better than a lot of human beings at the majority of tasks." He likewise addressed criticisms that big language designs (LLMs) merely follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing process to the clinical approach of observing, assuming, and validating. These declarations have actually triggered dispute, as they count on a broad and non-traditional meaning of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models show exceptional versatility, they may not fully satisfy this standard. Notably, Kazemi's comments came soon after OpenAI eliminated "AGI" from the terms of its partnership with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the company's strategic intents. [95]
Timescales
Progress in artificial intelligence has actually traditionally gone through durations of rapid progress separated by durations when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were fundamental advances in hardware, software application or both to create space for additional development. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware available in the twentieth century was not sufficient to execute deep knowing, which needs large numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]
In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that estimates of the time required before a truly versatile AGI is built vary from ten years to over a century. Since 2007 [upgrade], the agreement in the AGI research neighborhood appeared to be that the timeline talked about by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. in between 2015 and 2045) was possible. [103] Mainstream AI researchers have offered a large variety of opinions on whether progress will be this quick. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such viewpoints found a bias towards anticipating that the beginning of AGI would occur within 16-26 years for modern and historic predictions alike. That paper has actually been slammed for how it categorized viewpoints as specialist or non-expert. [104]
In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton developed a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competitors with a top-5 test error rate of 15.3%, considerably much better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the conventional approach used a weighted amount of ratings from various pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered the preliminary ground-breaker of the current deep knowing wave. [105]
In 2017, scientists Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu performed intelligence tests on openly readily available and easily available weak AI such as Google AI, Apple's Siri, and others. At the optimum, these AIs reached an IQ value of about 47, which corresponds around to a six-year-old child in first grade. An adult comes to about 100 usually. Similar tests were brought out in 2014, with the IQ score reaching an optimum worth of 27. [106] [107]
In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language design efficient in carrying out lots of varied jobs 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 very same year, Jason Rohrer used his GPT-3 account to develop a chatbot, and offered a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested changes to the chatbot to adhere to their safety guidelines; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]
In 2022, DeepMind established Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of performing more than 600 different jobs. [110]
In 2023, Microsoft Research published a research study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it exhibited more general intelligence than previous AI models and showed human-level performance in tasks covering multiple domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study sparked a dispute on whether GPT-4 could be considered an early, incomplete version of synthetic basic intelligence, stressing the requirement for more exploration and assessment of such systems. [111]
In 2023, the AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton specified that: [112]
The idea that this things could actually get smarter than individuals - a couple of individuals thought that, [...] But the majority of people believed it was method off. And I thought it was method off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years or perhaps longer away. Obviously, I no longer believe that.
In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly said that "The development in the last few years has actually been pretty incredible", and that he sees no reason it would slow down, expecting AGI within a decade or even a couple of years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, stated his expectation that within 5 years, AI would be capable of passing any test at least as well as humans. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI staff member, approximated AGI by 2027 to be "strikingly possible". [115]
Whole brain emulation
While the development of transformer models like in ChatGPT is thought about the most promising path to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can act as an alternative technique. With whole brain simulation, a brain model is constructed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and after that copying and imitating it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation model should be adequately faithful to the initial, so that it acts in almost the very same way 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 study functions. It has actually been talked about in expert system research study [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that could deliver the essential detailed understanding are enhancing rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] anticipates that a map of enough quality will become offered on a similar timescale to the computing power needed to replicate it.
Early approximates
For low-level brain simulation, a really effective cluster of computers or GPUs would be required, offered the huge quantity of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells has on typical 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other neurons. The brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates differ for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A price quote of the brain's processing power, based on a basic switch design for nerve cell activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]
In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at different price quotes for the hardware required to equate to the human brain and adopted a figure of 1016 calculations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a "calculation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a procedure used to rate existing supercomputers - then 1016 "calculations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, achieved in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He used this figure to predict the necessary hardware would be available at some point between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential growth in computer 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 developed an especially comprehensive and openly accessible atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, scientists from Duke University performed a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.
Criticisms of simulation-based methods
The artificial nerve cell design presumed by Kurzweil and utilized in lots of existing synthetic neural network executions is easy compared with biological nerve cells. A brain simulation would likely need to capture the comprehensive cellular behaviour of biological neurons, presently comprehended just in broad summary. The overhead introduced by complete modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical details of neural behaviour (particularly on a molecular scale) would need computational powers several orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's quote. In addition, the estimates do not account for glial cells, which are known to contribute in cognitive procedures. [125]
A basic criticism of the simulated brain technique derives from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is an important aspect of human intelligence and is required to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is correct, any completely practical brain design will need to include more than simply the neurons (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an option, however it is unknown whether this would suffice.
Philosophical perspective
"Strong AI" as specified in philosophy
In 1980, thinker John Searle created the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese space argument. [128] He proposed a difference in between 2 hypotheses about expert system: [f]
Strong AI hypothesis: A synthetic intelligence system can have "a mind" and "awareness".
Weak AI hypothesis: An expert system system can (only) act like it believes and has a mind and consciousness.
The first one he called "strong" since it makes a stronger statement: it assumes something special has actually occurred to the maker that goes beyond those capabilities that we can test. The behaviour of a "weak AI" machine would be exactly identical to a "strong AI" machine, but the latter would likewise have subjective mindful experience. This usage is likewise common in scholastic AI research study and textbooks. [129]
In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil utilize the term "strong AI" to suggest "human level artificial general intelligence". [102] This is not the like Searle's strong AI, unless it is presumed that awareness is needed for human-level AGI. Academic philosophers such as Searle do not believe that is the case, and to most expert system researchers the question is out-of-scope. [130]
Mainstream AI is most thinking about how a program acts. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, users.atw.hu they don't care if you call it genuine or a simulation." [130] If the program can act as if it has a mind, then there is no need to understand if it really has mind - undoubtedly, there would be no other way to tell. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is equivalent to the declaration "artificial basic intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI scientists take the weak AI hypothesis for approved, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research study, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are two various things.
Consciousness
Consciousness can have different significances, and some aspects play considerable roles in science fiction and the principles of synthetic intelligence:
Sentience (or "phenomenal consciousness"): The ability to "feel" understandings or emotions subjectively, instead of the ability to reason about understandings. Some thinkers, such as David Chalmers, utilize the term "awareness" to refer exclusively to remarkable awareness, which is roughly equivalent to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience emerges is understood as the difficult problem of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel described in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be mindful. If we are not conscious, then it doesn't feel like anything. Nagel utilizes the example of a bat: we can smartly ask "what does it feel like to be a bat?" However, we are unlikely to ask "what does it seem like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat seems mindful (i.e., has awareness) but a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had achieved life, though this claim was commonly disputed by other specialists. [135]
Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a separate individual, specifically to be consciously familiar with one's own ideas. This is opposed to just being the "subject of one's thought"-an os or debugger is able to be "knowledgeable about itself" (that is, to represent itself in the same way it represents everything else)-however this is not what individuals typically indicate when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]
These qualities have an ethical measurement. AI life would trigger issues of welfare and legal security, likewise to animals. [136] Other aspects of awareness related to cognitive abilities are also appropriate to the principle of AI rights. [137] Determining how to incorporate innovative AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emerging problem. [138]
Benefits
AGI might have a wide array of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI might help reduce different problems worldwide such as hunger, poverty and health issues. [139]
AGI could enhance efficiency and performance in the majority of tasks. For instance, in public health, AGI might speed up medical research study, notably against cancer. [140] It could take care of the senior, [141] and democratize access to fast, high-quality medical diagnostics. It might offer fun, inexpensive and individualized education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist could become outdated if the wealth produced is properly rearranged. [141] [142] This also raises the question of the place of humans in a drastically automated society.
AGI might also assist to make logical decisions, and to expect and prevent catastrophes. It might likewise assist to enjoy the advantages of potentially catastrophic technologies such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while preventing the associated threats. [143] If an AGI's primary goal is to prevent existential catastrophes such as human extinction (which could be difficult if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be true), [144] it might take steps to dramatically minimize the threats [143] while decreasing the effect of these steps on our lifestyle.
Risks
Existential risks
AGI may represent numerous types of existential risk, which are risks that threaten "the early termination of Earth-originating smart life or the long-term and drastic destruction of its potential for desirable future advancement". [145] The risk of human termination from AGI has been the subject of many debates, but there is likewise the possibility that the development of AGI would lead to a completely problematic future. Notably, it could be used to spread and maintain the set of values of whoever develops it. If mankind still has moral blind areas similar to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, preventing moral progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI might facilitate mass monitoring and brainwashing, which could be used to develop a stable repressive worldwide totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is likewise a threat for the makers themselves. If machines that are sentient or otherwise worthy of ethical factor to consider are mass created in the future, taking part in a civilizational course that indefinitely ignores their well-being and interests could be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering how much AGI could improve humanity's future and aid lower other existential risks, Toby Ord calls these existential risks "an argument for proceeding with due caution", not for "deserting AI". [147]
Risk of loss of control and human termination
The thesis that AI poses an existential threat for human beings, and that this threat needs more attention, is controversial however has been backed in 2023 by lots of 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 criticized extensive indifference:
So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and dangers, the specialists are surely doing whatever possible to ensure the best result, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll show up in a couple of years,' 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 prospective fate of mankind has often been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast states that higher intelligence allowed humankind to dominate gorillas, which are now vulnerable in methods that they might not have actually prepared for. As a result, the gorilla has become an endangered types, not out of malice, but simply as a collateral damage from human activities. [154]
The skeptic Yann LeCun considers that AGIs will have no desire to dominate humankind and that we need to take care not to anthropomorphize them and translate their intents as we would for human beings. He stated that individuals will not be "smart adequate to develop super-intelligent makers, yet extremely dumb to the point of providing it moronic objectives without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the idea of crucial convergence recommends that nearly whatever their objectives, intelligent agents will have factors to try to survive and obtain more power as intermediary steps to attaining these objectives. And that this does not require having emotions. [156]
Many scholars who are worried about existential threat advocate for more research into resolving the "control issue" to address the concern: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers implement to increase the likelihood that their recursively-improving AI would continue to act in a friendly, instead of harmful, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is complicated by the AI arms race (which might result in a race to the bottom of security preventative measures in order to release products before competitors), [159] and the usage of AI in weapon systems. [160]
The thesis that AI can pose existential threat likewise has detractors. Skeptics generally say that AGI is not likely in the short-term, or that concerns about AGI distract from other concerns associated with current AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder considers that for numerous people beyond the innovation market, existing chatbots and LLMs are already viewed as though they were AGI, resulting in additional misunderstanding and fear. [162]
Skeptics sometimes charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an unreasonable belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an illogical belief in a supreme God. [163] Some scientists think that the communication campaigns on AI existential threat 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, along with other market leaders and scientists, issued a joint statement asserting that "Mitigating the danger of termination from AI ought to be a global priority together with other societal-scale dangers such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]
Mass unemployment
Researchers from OpenAI approximated that "80% of the U.S. workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the introduction of LLMs, while around 19% of employees might see a minimum of 50% of their tasks impacted". [166] [167] They consider workplace employees to be the most exposed, for instance mathematicians, accounting professionals or web designers. [167] AGI might have a better autonomy, ability to make choices, to user 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 upon how the wealth will be redistributed: [142]
Everyone can delight in a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or the majority of people can end up badly poor if the machine-owners effectively lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend appears to be towards the 2nd choice, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality
Elon Musk considers that the automation of society will need federal governments to embrace a universal basic earnings. [168]
See likewise
Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive capabilities comparable to those of the animal or human brain
AI impact
AI security - Research area on making AI safe and helpful
AI alignment - AI conformance to the intended objective
A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža
Artificial intelligence
Automated maker learning - Process of automating the application of artificial intelligence
BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research initiative revealed by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre
General game playing - Ability of expert system to play different video games
Generative artificial intelligence - AI system capable of generating content in reaction to triggers
Human Brain Project - Scientific research job
Intelligence amplification - Use of infotech to enhance human intelligence (IA).
Machine ethics - Moral behaviours of man-made machines.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task learning - Solving multiple machine discovering jobs at the same time.
Neural scaling law - Statistical law in machine learning.
Outline of artificial intelligence - Overview of and topical guide to expert system.
Transhumanism - Philosophical movement.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or type of expert system.
Transfer knowing - Machine knowing technique.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competition.
Hardware for artificial intelligence - Hardware specifically designed and enhanced for expert system.
Weak expert system - Form of artificial intelligence.
Notes
^ a b See listed below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the academic meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the article Chinese room.
^ AI creator John McCarthy writes: "we can not yet characterize in general what sort of computational treatments we wish to call smart. " [26] (For a conversation of some definitions of intelligence utilized by expert system scientists, see viewpoint of artificial intelligence.).
^ The Lighthill report specifically slammed AI's "grand goals" and led the taking apart of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became determined to money only "mission-oriented direct research study, higgledy-piggledy.xyz rather than basic undirected research study". [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy composes "it would be a great relief to the rest of the workers in AI if the creators of new general formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more protected kind than has actually in some cases been the case." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More just recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in regards to MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil introduced.
^ As defined in a standard AI book: "The assertion that devices might perhaps act smartly (or, perhaps much better, act as if they were smart) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by theorists, and the assertion that devices that do so are in fact believing (rather than replicating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References
^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is artificial narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is created to perform a single job.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to make sure that artificial general intelligence advantages all of humanity.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's new goal is producing synthetic general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to build AI that is better than human-level at all of the human senses.
^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D projects were recognized as being active in 2020.
^ a b c "AI timelines: What do professionals in artificial intelligence 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 stops Google and warns of danger ahead". The New York City Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is tough to see how you can avoid 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 explores GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 shows triggers of AGI.
^ Butler, Octavia E. (1993 ). Parable of the Sower. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4466-7550-5. All that you touch you change. All that you alter 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 Expert System". The New York City Times. The genuine danger is not AI itself however the way we deploy it.
^ "Impressed by expert system? Experts state AGI is following, and it has 'existential' dangers". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might position existential threats to mankind.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The first superintelligence will be the last innovation that humanity needs to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. Mitigating the danger of termination from AI need to be a worldwide top priority.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts alert of danger of extinction from AI.
^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York Times. We are far from producing devices that can outthink us in basic ways.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not present an existential risk". Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential threat.
^ 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 "machine intelligence with the complete variety of human intelligence.".
^ "The Age of Expert System: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the original on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they use for "human-level" intelligence in the physical sign system hypothesis.
^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the original on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
^ "What is artificial superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Expert system is transforming our world - it is on everyone 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 original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of smart qualities is based upon the subjects covered by major AI textbooks, consisting of: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998.
^ Johnson 1987.
^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body shapes the method we think: a brand-new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: The concept of competence". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The principle 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 initial 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 genuine young 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 distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC]
^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI designs like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing everything from the bar exam to AP Biology. Here's a list of challenging exams both AI variations have actually passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Expert System Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Capitalize on It". Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is unreliable. The Winograd Schema is obsolete. Coffee is the response". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder recommended evaluating an AI chatbot's capability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to 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 ). "Artificial Intelligence" (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 Defining Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Expert System, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 22 May 2013.
^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". Stanford University Human-Centered Expert System. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50.
^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). "Artificial Intelligence, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the initial on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
^ Simon 1965, p. 96 estimated in Crevier 1993, p. 109.
^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the original on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008.
^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), estimated in Crevier (1993, p. 109).
^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994.
^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment".
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22.
^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see also Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212.
^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). "Respond to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007.
^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). "Behind Artificial Intelligence, 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 engineers prevented the term expert system for fear of being considered as wild-eyed dreamers.
^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26
^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the 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 Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions Based Upon Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the initial on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ "Who created the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the initial on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., via Life 3.0: 'The term "AGI" was promoted by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel'
^ Wang & Goertzel 2007
^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summertime school: June 22 - July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009". Archived from the original on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the 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 limitations of maker intelligence: Despite progress in maker intelligence, synthetic basic intelligence is still a significant obstacle". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ "Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing "Sparks" of AGI". Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023.
^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). "The Singularity Isn't Near". MIT Technology Review. Retriev
