Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that matches or exceeds human cognitive capabilities across a large range of cognitive tasks. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is restricted to specific jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that considerably surpasses human cognitive capabilities. AGI is thought about one of the meanings of strong AI.

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

The timeline for accomplishing AGI stays a subject of continuous argument among researchers and specialists. As of 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or decades; others keep it might take a century or longer; a minority think it might never be attained; and another minority claims that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton has actually expressed issues about the quick progress towards AGI, recommending it might be achieved earlier than numerous expect. [7]

There is dispute on the precise meaning of AGI and concerning whether modern large language designs (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early kinds of AGI. [8] AGI is a common subject in science fiction and futures research studies. [9] [10]

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential danger. [11] [12] [13] Many professionals on AI have specified that reducing the threat of human termination positioned by AGI should be a worldwide top priority. [14] [15] Others find the advancement of AGI to be too remote to provide such a danger. [16] [17]

Terminology

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

Some academic sources book the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience sentience or awareness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) has the ability to resolve one specific issue but does not have general cognitive capabilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness nor have a mind in the exact same sense as people. [a]

Related principles consist of synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical kind of AGI that is far more usually smart than people, [23] while the idea of transformative AI connects to AI having a big influence on society, for instance, comparable to the farming or commercial revolution. [24]

A framework for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They define 5 levels of AGI: emerging, qualified, professional, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a skilled AGI is specified as an AI that outperforms 50% of proficient grownups in a wide variety of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is likewise specified but with a limit of 100%. They think about big language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics

Various popular meanings of intelligence have actually been proposed. Among the leading propositions is the Turing test. However, there are other popular meanings, and some scientists disagree with the more popular techniques. [b]

Intelligence qualities

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

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


Many interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) consider additional qualities such as creativity (the capability to form novel mental images and concepts) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that exhibit numerous of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated thinking, decision assistance system, robot, evolutionary calculation, smart agent). There is argument about whether contemporary AI systems possess them to an adequate degree.

Physical traits

Other abilities are thought about desirable in smart systems, as they might impact intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: [30]

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


This consists of the capability to spot and react to risk. [31]

Although the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the capability to act (e.g. move and control items, change location to explore, etc) can be preferable 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) might currently 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 type; being a silicon-based computational system is sufficient, provided it can process input (language) from the external world in location of human senses. This interpretation lines up with the understanding that AGI has actually never ever been proscribed a particular physical personification and therefore does not demand a capability for locomotion or traditional "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests suggested to confirm human-level AGI have actually been considered, consisting of: [33] [34]

The concept of the test is that the maker needs to try and pretend to be a man, by responding to questions put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is reasonably convincing. A considerable portion of a jury, who need to not be skilled about devices, must be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete issues

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

There are lots of problems that have been conjectured to need general intelligence to solve in addition to humans. Examples consist of computer system vision, natural language understanding, and handling unanticipated scenarios while resolving any real-world issue. [48] Even a specific job like translation requires a maker to check out and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), understand the context (understanding), and consistently reproduce the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these problems need to be fixed at the same time in order to reach human-level device efficiency.

However, many of these tasks can now be carried out by contemporary large language designs. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has actually reached human-level performance on many benchmarks for reading comprehension and visual thinking. [49]

History

Classical AI

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

Their predictions were the inspiration 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 pioneer Marvin Minsky was a specialist [53] on the task of making HAL 9000 as sensible as possible according to the consensus forecasts of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation ... the issue of producing 'synthetic intelligence' will substantially be fixed". [54]

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

However, in the early 1970s, it became apparent that researchers had actually grossly undervalued the difficulty of the job. Funding agencies became doubtful of AGI and put scientists under increasing pressure to produce beneficial "applied AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project restored interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that consisted of AGI objectives like "continue a casual conversation". [58] In response to this and the success of professional systems, both industry and government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI amazingly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never fulfilled. [60] For the second time in 20 years, AI researchers who forecasted the imminent accomplishment of AGI had been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a reputation for making vain guarantees. They ended up being hesitant to make forecasts at all [d] and prevented reference of "human level" artificial intelligence for worry of being identified "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI achieved business success and scholastic respectability by focusing on particular sub-problems where AI can produce proven results and business applications, such as speech recognition and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now used thoroughly throughout the innovation market, and research in this vein is heavily moneyed in both academic community and market. As of 2018 [upgrade], development in this field was thought about an emerging trend, and a fully grown stage was expected to be reached in more than ten years. [64]

At the millenium, numerous traditional AI researchers [65] hoped that strong AI might be developed by combining programs that fix different sub-problems. Hans Moravec composed in 1988:

I am confident that this bottom-up path to artificial intelligence will one day fulfill the traditional top-down route majority method, all set to supply the real-world skills and the commonsense understanding that has actually been so frustratingly elusive in reasoning programs. Fully smart machines will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven uniting the 2 efforts. [65]

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

The expectation has often been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow fulfill "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches someplace in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper are legitimate, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is truly only one viable path from sense to symbols: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software level of a computer will never be reached by this path (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we should even try to reach such a level, considering that it appears getting there would simply total up to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic meanings (consequently merely lowering ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]

Modern synthetic general intelligence research study

The term "synthetic general intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation 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 agent increases "the capability to satisfy goals in a large variety of environments". [68] This kind of AGI, defined by the ability to maximise a mathematical definition of intelligence instead of show 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 explained by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and preliminary results". The first summer season school in AGI was arranged in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The very first university course was offered in 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT provided a course on AGI in 2018, arranged by Lex Fridman and including a variety of visitor lecturers.

As of 2023 [upgrade], a small number of computer researchers are active in AGI research study, and many contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, progressively more researchers have an interest in open-ended knowing, [76] [77] which is the idea of permitting AI to constantly discover and innovate like human beings do.

Feasibility

As of 2023, the advancement and potential accomplishment of AGI remains a topic of extreme dispute within the AI community. While standard agreement held that AGI was a distant goal, recent developments have led some researchers and industry figures to claim that early kinds of AGI might already exist. [78] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do". This prediction stopped working to come true. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen believed that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century because it would require "unforeseeable and essentially unforeseeable advancements" and a "clinically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf between modern computing and human-level synthetic intelligence is as broad as the gulf between existing space flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

An additional challenge is the absence of clearness in specifying what intelligence requires. Does it require awareness? Must it display the capability to set goals along with pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if model sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as planning, reasoning, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence need explicitly replicating the brain and its particular professors? Does it need emotions? [81]

Most AI scientists believe strong AI can be achieved in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, reject the possibility of attaining strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who believe human-level AI will be accomplished, but that the present level of development is such that a date can not precisely be anticipated. [84] AI experts' views on the feasibility of AGI wax and wane. Four surveys performed in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the typical quote among experts for when they would be 50% confident AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending on the poll, with the mean being 2081. Of the experts, 16.5% addressed with "never ever" when asked the same question however with a 90% self-confidence instead. [85] [86] Further present AGI development considerations can be discovered above Tests for confirming human-level AGI.

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

In 2023, Microsoft researchers published a detailed evaluation of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it might fairly be deemed an early (yet still insufficient) variation of a synthetic general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outshines 99% of human beings on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig wrote in 2023 that a considerable level of basic intelligence has already been attained with frontier designs. They composed that reluctance to this view comes from four primary factors: a "healthy apprehension about metrics for AGI", an "ideological commitment to alternative AI theories or techniques", a "commitment to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "issue about the economic implications of AGI". [91]

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

In 2024, OpenAI launched o1-preview, the first of a series of models that "invest more time thinking before they respond". According to Mira Murati, this ability to believe before responding represents a new, extra paradigm. It enhances design outputs by spending more computing power when generating the response, whereas the design scaling paradigm improves outputs by increasing the design size, training data and training calculate power. [93] [94]

An OpenAI employee, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the business had actually achieved AGI, stating, "In my viewpoint, we have actually currently attained AGI and it's a lot 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 humans at a lot of tasks." He also attended to criticisms that big language models (LLMs) merely follow predefined patterns, comparing their learning procedure to the clinical method of observing, hypothesizing, and verifying. These statements have actually triggered argument, as they count on a broad and unconventional definition of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence across all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models show amazing versatility, they might not fully meet this standard. Notably, Kazemi's comments came shortly after OpenAI removed "AGI" from the terms of its collaboration with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the company's strategic intentions. [95]

Timescales

Progress in artificial intelligence has traditionally gone through periods of quick progress separated by periods when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were basic advances in hardware, software application or both to develop space for more development. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the hardware readily available in the twentieth century was not sufficient to implement deep learning, which needs great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that estimates of the time required before a genuinely flexible AGI is developed differ from 10 years to over a century. Since 2007 [update], the consensus in the AGI research study community appeared to be that the timeline gone over by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have actually offered a vast array of opinions on whether progress will be this fast. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions discovered a bias towards anticipating that the beginning of AGI would happen within 16-26 years for contemporary and historical forecasts alike. That paper has been slammed for how it classified opinions 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 mistake rate of 15.3%, substantially better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the standard approach utilized a weighted sum of ratings from various pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered as the preliminary ground-breaker of the present deep learning wave. [105]

In 2017, scientists Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu performed intelligence tests on openly offered and freely accessible 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 kid in very first grade. A grownup comes to about 100 usually. Similar tests were performed in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching an optimum value of 27. [106] [107]

In 2020, OpenAI developed GPT-3, a language design efficient in carrying out numerous varied tasks without specific 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 classified as a narrow AI system. [108]

In the same year, Jason Rohrer utilized his GPT-3 account to develop a chatbot, and offered a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested modifications to the chatbot to adhere to their safety standards; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

In 2022, DeepMind established Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of carrying out more than 600 different jobs. [110]

In 2023, Microsoft Research released a study on an early variation of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it showed more general intelligence than previous AI designs and demonstrated human-level efficiency in tasks covering multiple domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study sparked a debate on whether GPT-4 could be considered an early, incomplete variation of artificial general 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 stuff might actually get smarter than individuals - a few individuals believed that, [...] But many people thought it was way off. And I believed it was method off. I believed it was 30 to 50 years or perhaps longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly said that "The progress in the last few years has been quite unbelievable", which he sees no factor why it would decrease, anticipating AGI within a years or even a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, specified his expectation that within 5 years, AI would be capable of passing any test a minimum of as well as humans. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI worker, approximated AGI by 2027 to be "strikingly plausible". [115]

Whole brain emulation

While the development of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is considered the most promising course to AGI, [116] [117] whole brain emulation can serve as an alternative method. With whole brain simulation, a brain design is constructed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and after that copying and replicating it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation design should be sufficiently faithful to the original, so that it acts in virtually the very same way as the initial 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 purposes. It has actually been gone over in expert system research [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that might provide the needed in-depth understanding are enhancing rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] anticipates that a map of sufficient quality will end up being offered on a similar timescale to the computing power needed to replicate it.

Early approximates

For low-level brain simulation, an extremely powerful cluster of computers or GPUs would be needed, provided the huge amount of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other neurons. The brain of a three-year-old kid has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, supporting by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A quote of the brain's processing power, based on a simple switch model for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil looked at numerous quotes for the hardware needed to equate to the human brain and adopted a figure of 1016 calculations per second (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a "calculation" was equivalent to one "floating-point operation" - a measure used to rate current supercomputers - then 1016 "calculations" would be equivalent to 10 petaFLOPS, accomplished in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He utilized this figure to forecast the essential hardware would be available at some point in between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential development in computer system power at the time of writing continued.

Current research

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded effort active from 2013 to 2023, has developed an especially comprehensive and publicly available atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, scientists from Duke University carried out a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.

Criticisms of simulation-based approaches

The synthetic nerve cell model presumed by Kurzweil and used in lots of current synthetic neural network applications is easy compared with biological nerve cells. A brain simulation would likely need to catch the comprehensive cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, currently understood only in broad outline. The overhead presented by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical details of neural behaviour (especially on a molecular scale) would need computational powers numerous orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's estimate. In addition, the estimates do not represent glial cells, which are understood to play a role in cognitive procedures. [125]

A basic criticism of the simulated brain technique obtains from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is an essential element of human intelligence and is needed to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is correct, any totally functional brain design will require to encompass more than simply the nerve cells (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual embodiment (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an option, but it is unidentified whether this would suffice.

Philosophical perspective

"Strong AI" as defined in philosophy

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

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


The first one he called "strong" because it makes a stronger statement: it assumes something unique has actually happened to the device that exceeds those capabilities that we can check. The behaviour of a "weak AI" device would be precisely similar to a "strong AI" machine, but the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This use is likewise typical in scholastic AI research and textbooks. [129]

In contrast to Searle and traditional AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil utilize the term "strong AI" to indicate "human level artificial general intelligence". [102] This is not the exact same as Searle's strong AI, unless it is presumed that awareness is essential for human-level AGI. Academic thinkers such as Searle do not think that is the case, and to most expert system researchers the concern is out-of-scope. [130]

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

Consciousness

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

Sentience (or "extraordinary consciousness"): The capability to "feel" perceptions or feelings subjectively, instead of the capability to factor about perceptions. Some thinkers, such as David Chalmers, use the term "consciousness" to refer solely to phenomenal consciousness, which is roughly equivalent to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience arises is called the tough issue of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel described in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be conscious. If we are not mindful, then it does not seem like anything. Nagel uses the example of a bat: we can smartly ask "what does it feel like to be a bat?" However, we are not likely to ask "what does it seem like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat seems conscious (i.e., has consciousness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had accomplished sentience, though this claim was widely challenged by other experts. [135]

Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a separate individual, specifically to be knowingly aware of one's own ideas. This is opposed to just being the "topic of one's believed"-an operating system or debugger is able to be "knowledgeable about itself" (that is, to represent itself in the very same way it represents everything else)-but this is not what people generally indicate when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]

These characteristics have a moral dimension. AI sentience would generate issues of well-being and legal defense, likewise to animals. [136] Other elements of consciousness associated to cognitive capabilities are likewise relevant to the concept of AI rights. [137] Finding out how to integrate advanced AI with existing legal and social structures is an emerging problem. [138]

Benefits

AGI could have a large variety of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI could assist mitigate different issues on the planet such as appetite, hardship and illness. [139]

AGI might enhance productivity and efficiency in the majority of tasks. For instance, in public health, AGI could accelerate medical research study, especially against cancer. [140] It could take care of the elderly, [141] and equalize access to rapid, premium medical diagnostics. It could use fun, cheap and customized education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist could become outdated if the wealth produced is properly rearranged. [141] [142] This also raises the concern of the place of human beings in a significantly automated society.

AGI could also assist to make reasonable decisions, and to expect and avoid catastrophes. It could likewise assist to profit of possibly disastrous innovations such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while avoiding the associated dangers. [143] If an AGI's primary goal is to avoid existential catastrophes such as human termination (which could be tough if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be true), [144] it might take measures to dramatically reduce the dangers [143] while lessening the effect of these steps on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential risks

AGI might represent numerous types of existential risk, which are threats that threaten "the early extinction of Earth-originating smart life or the irreversible and drastic damage of its potential for preferable future development". [145] The threat of human extinction from AGI has been the topic of numerous debates, however there is also the possibility that the development of AGI would result in a completely problematic future. Notably, it could be utilized to spread and protect the set of values of whoever establishes it. If mankind still has moral blind spots similar to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, avoiding moral progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI might help with mass security and indoctrination, which might be utilized to develop a steady repressive worldwide totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is also a threat for the devices themselves. If machines that are sentient or otherwise worthwhile of ethical factor to consider are mass created in the future, engaging in a civilizational path that indefinitely overlooks their welfare and interests could be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI might enhance humanity's future and help in reducing other existential threats, Toby Ord calls these existential risks "an argument for proceeding with due care", not for "deserting AI". [147]

Risk of loss of control and human termination

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

In 2014, Stephen Hawking slammed prevalent indifference:

So, dealing with possible futures of enormous advantages and dangers, the experts are definitely doing everything possible to guarantee the very best result, right? Wrong. If an exceptional alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll arrive in a couple of years,' would we simply reply, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is more or less what is occurring with AI. [153]

The potential fate of mankind has often been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The comparison mentions that higher intelligence enabled mankind to control gorillas, which are now vulnerable in methods that they might not have anticipated. As an outcome, the gorilla has actually become a threatened types, not out of malice, however just as a security damage from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to control humanity which we should be careful not to anthropomorphize them and interpret their intents as we would for people. He stated that individuals will not be "wise adequate to create super-intelligent devices, yet ridiculously stupid to the point of providing it moronic goals without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the principle of crucial convergence suggests that almost whatever their objectives, smart agents will have reasons to attempt to survive and get more power as intermediary steps to achieving these objectives. And that this does not need having emotions. [156]

Many scholars who are concerned about existential threat advocate for more research into fixing the "control problem" to address the question: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers implement to increase the likelihood that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, instead of devastating, manner 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 safety preventative measures in order to launch products before rivals), [159] and using AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can position existential risk likewise has critics. Skeptics generally say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI distract from other problems related to present AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder considers that for lots of people outside of the innovation industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are already perceived as though they were AGI, resulting in further misunderstanding and fear. [162]

Skeptics sometimes charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an irrational belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an illogical belief in a supreme God. [163] Some scientists believe that the communication projects on AI existential risk by specific AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) may be an at effort at regulatory capture and to pump up interest in their items. [164] [165]

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, along with other market leaders and researchers, released a joint statement asserting that "Mitigating the threat of extinction from AI ought to be a worldwide priority along with other societal-scale dangers such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]

Mass joblessness

Researchers from OpenAI estimated that "80% of the U.S. labor force might have at least 10% of their work jobs affected by the intro of LLMs, while around 19% of workers may see at least 50% of their tasks affected". [166] [167] They consider office workers to be the most exposed, for example mathematicians, accounting professionals or web designers. [167] AGI could have a much better autonomy, ability to make decisions, to interface with other computer tools, however likewise to control robotized bodies.

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

Everyone can delight in a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or many people can end up badly bad if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. Up until now, the trend seems to be toward the 2nd choice, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

Elon Musk considers that the automation of society will need federal governments to adopt a universal basic earnings. [168]

See also

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive capabilities similar to those of the animal or human brain
AI result
AI safety - Research location on making AI safe and useful
AI positioning - AI conformance to the intended objective
A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža
Expert system
Automated machine learning - Process of automating the application of artificial intelligence
BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research effort revealed 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 video games
Generative expert system - AI system capable of generating content in action to triggers
Human Brain Project - Scientific research study project
Intelligence amplification - Use of infotech to augment human intelligence (IA).
Machine principles - Moral behaviours of manufactured makers.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task knowing - Solving numerous maker finding out jobs at the exact same time.
Neural scaling law - Statistical law in maker knowing.
Outline of synthetic intelligence - Overview of and topical guide to expert system.
Transhumanism - Philosophical motion.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or form of synthetic intelligence.
Transfer learning - Machine learning technique.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors.
Hardware for expert system - Hardware specially designed and enhanced for synthetic intelligence.
Weak artificial intelligence - Form of synthetic intelligence.


Notes

^ a b See listed below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the academic definition of "strong AI" and weak AI in the post Chinese room.
^ AI creator John McCarthy writes: "we can not yet define in basic what kinds of computational treatments we wish to call intelligent. " [26] (For a discussion of some definitions of intelligence utilized by synthetic intelligence scientists, see viewpoint of expert system.).
^ The Lighthill report specifically criticized AI's "grand objectives" and led the dismantling of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became determined to fund just "mission-oriented direct research, rather than standard undirected research". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy writes "it would be a great relief to the remainder of the workers in AI if the creators of new basic formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more safeguarded kind than has often held true." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in regards to MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil introduced.
^ As specified in a standard AI book: "The assertion that machines could potentially act wisely (or, maybe better, act as if they were smart) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that machines that do so are really believing (instead of 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 synthetic narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is designed to carry out a single job.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to ensure that artificial basic intelligence benefits all of humanity.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's brand-new goal is producing artificial general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to construct AI that is better than human-level at all of the human senses.
^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Study 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 determined as being active in 2020.
^ a b c "AI timelines: What do experts in expert system 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 City Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023.
^ "AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton stops 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 avoid the bad actors from using it for bad things.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early explores GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 reveals sparks of AGI.
^ Butler, Octavia E. (1993 ). Parable of the Sower. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4466-7550-5. All that you touch you change. All that you change modifications you.
^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming.
^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Expert System". The New York City Times. The genuine threat is not AI itself however the method we release it.
^ "Impressed by artificial intelligence? Experts state AGI is following, and it has 'existential' dangers". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI could position existential dangers to humankind.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The very first superintelligence will be the last innovation that humanity requires to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. Mitigating the threat of extinction from AI should be an international top priority.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts caution of risk 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 developing makers 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 original on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil describes strong AI as "maker intelligence with the full series 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 utilize for "human-level" intelligence in the physical symbol system hypothesis.
^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the original on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
^ "What is synthetic superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Artificial intelligence is transforming our world - it is on everyone to make sure that it works out". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to accomplishing AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat.
^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of smart traits is based upon the subjects covered by significant AI textbooks, 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 believe: a brand-new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The concept of skills". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The idea 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 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 happens when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ "Eugene Goostman is a real boy - the Turing Test states so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ "Scientists challenge 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 differentiate GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC]
^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI designs like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing whatever from the bar test to AP Biology. Here's a list of challenging examinations both AI versions have 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 answer". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder suggested evaluating an AI chatbot's ability 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 Expert System (Second ed.). New York City: 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 original 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 ). "Expert System, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the original on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
^ Simon 1965, p. 96 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109.
^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008.
^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), priced estimate 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 engineers prevented the term synthetic intelligence for fear of being viewed as wild-eyed dreamers.
^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26
^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20
^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300.
^ Gubrud 1997
^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the original on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ "Who 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 promoted by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel'
^ Wang & Goertzel 2007
^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summertime school: wiki.woge.or.at 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 original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limitations of maker intelligence: Despite progress in machine intelligence, synthetic basic intelligence is still a significant obstacle". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early 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 become a Frankenstein's beast". 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 recognized". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1 ): 1-9. doi:10.1057/ s41599-020-0494-4. hdl:11250/ 2726984. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 219710554.
^ McCarthy 2007b.
^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (23 November 2015). "The Doomsday Invention: Will artificial intelligence bring us utopia or damage?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future progress in synthetic intelligence: A survey of expert viewpoint. In Fundamental problems of synthetic intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.
^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, modified by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia
^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023.
^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The originality of machines: AI takes the Torrance Test". Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185.
^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema.
^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). "Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024". Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
^ "Introducing OpenAI o1-preview". OpenAI. 12 September 2024.
^ Knight, Will. "OpenAI Announces a Brand-new AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024.
^ "OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved". Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024.
^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ "Next-Gen AI: OpenAI and Meta's Leap Towards Reasoning Machines". Unite.ai. 19 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ James, Alex P. (2022 ). &q