Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a kind of expert system (AI) that matches or exceeds human cognitive capabilities across a large range of cognitive tasks. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to specific jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that considerably goes beyond human cognitive capabilities. AGI is considered among the definitions of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a primary goal of AI research study and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 survey determined 72 active AGI research and advancement projects across 37 countries. [4]

The timeline for accomplishing AGI remains a topic of ongoing argument among scientists and experts. As of 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or years; others maintain it might take a century or longer; a minority think it may never be attained; and another minority declares that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton has revealed issues about the quick development towards AGI, suggesting it could be attained sooner than lots of anticipate. [7]

There is argument on the exact meaning of AGI and regarding whether modern-day large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early types of AGI. [8] AGI is a typical subject in sci-fi and futures studies. [9] [10]

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

Terminology

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

Some academic sources book the term "strong AI" for computer system programs that experience sentience or consciousness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) has the ability to resolve one particular issue however lacks basic cognitive abilities. [22] [19] Some scholastic sources utilize "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the same sense as people. [a]

Related principles consist of artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical kind of AGI that is much more normally intelligent than human beings, [23] while the idea of transformative AI relates to AI having a big effect on society, for example, comparable to the agricultural or industrial transformation. [24]

A structure for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They define five levels of AGI: akropolistravel.com emerging, skilled, specialist, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a skilled AGI is defined as an AI that outshines 50% of skilled grownups in a wide variety of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is likewise specified however with a threshold of 100%. They consider big language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics

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

Intelligence qualities

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

factor, usage strategy, solve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty
represent understanding, consisting of common sense knowledge
plan
discover
- communicate in natural language
- if necessary, integrate these skills in conclusion of any provided objective


Many interdisciplinary methods (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and decision making) consider extra characteristics such as imagination (the capability to form unique psychological images and principles) [28] and autonomy. [29]

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

Physical traits

Other capabilities are considered preferable in smart systems, as they may impact intelligence or help in its expression. These consist of: [30]

- the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on), and
- the capability to act (e.g. relocation and control things, change area to explore, and so on).


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

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc) and the ability to act (e.g. move and control things, change location to explore, etc) can be desirable for some smart systems, [30] these physical abilities are not strictly needed for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language models (LLMs) may already be or become AGI. Even from a less positive viewpoint on LLMs, there is no company requirement for an AGI to have a human-like kind; being a silicon-based computational system is adequate, offered it can process input (language) from the external world in location of human senses. This interpretation aligns with the understanding that AGI has never ever been proscribed a specific physical personification and hence does not require a capability for mobility or standard "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests suggested to verify human-level AGI have been considered, including: [33] [34]

The concept of the test is that the machine has to try and pretend to be a man, by answering questions put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is reasonably persuading. A significant part of a jury, who ought to not be skilled about makers, should be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete problems

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

There are many problems that have been conjectured to need general intelligence to solve along with human beings. Examples consist of computer system vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unforeseen circumstances while resolving any real-world problem. [48] Even a specific task like translation needs a maker to read and write in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), comprehend the context (understanding), and consistently recreate the author's initial intent (social intelligence). All of these issues require to be resolved at the same time in order to reach human-level maker performance.

However, many of these tasks can now be performed by modern big language designs. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has reached human-level performance on numerous standards for checking out comprehension and visual thinking. [49]

History

Classical AI

Modern AI research began in the mid-1950s. [50] The first generation of AI researchers were encouraged that synthetic basic intelligence was possible which it would exist in simply 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 inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers thought they might develop by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was an expert [53] on the project of making HAL 9000 as practical as possible according to the agreement forecasts of the time. He stated in 1967, "Within a generation ... the issue of developing 'synthetic intelligence' will considerably be solved". [54]

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

However, in the early 1970s, it ended up being apparent that researchers had actually grossly undervalued the difficulty of the job. Funding firms became skeptical 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 casual discussion". [58] In action to this and the success of professional systems, both market and government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI marvelously 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 scientists who forecasted the imminent achievement of AGI had actually been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a credibility for making vain promises. They became reluctant to make predictions at all [d] and avoided mention of "human level" expert system for worry of being identified "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI accomplished business success and academic respectability by concentrating on specific sub-problems where AI can produce proven outcomes and business applications, such as speech acknowledgment and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now used extensively throughout the technology market, and research in this vein is greatly funded in both academic community and industry. Since 2018 [upgrade], development in this field was thought about an emerging trend, and a mature phase was anticipated to be reached in more than ten years. [64]

At the turn of the century, numerous mainstream AI researchers [65] hoped that strong AI might be established by combining programs that fix different sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:

I am positive that this bottom-up path to expert system will one day meet the traditional top-down route more than half way, prepared to provide the real-world proficiency and the commonsense knowledge that has actually been so frustratingly elusive in thinking programs. Fully smart makers will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven unifying the two efforts. [65]

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

The expectation has actually typically been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow fulfill "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches someplace in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is really only one practical route 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 must even attempt to reach such a level, considering that it looks as if arriving would just amount to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic significances (thus simply reducing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer system). [66]

Modern synthetic general intelligence research study

The term "synthetic basic intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a discussion of the implications of 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 capability to satisfy objectives in a wide range of environments". [68] This type of AGI, identified by the ability to increase a mathematical meaning of intelligence instead of exhibit human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal expert system. [70]

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

As of 2023 [update], a small number of computer scientists are active in AGI research study, and lots of add to a series of AGI conferences. However, progressively more researchers have an interest in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the idea of allowing AI to continuously learn and innovate like people do.

Feasibility

As of 2023, the development and potential accomplishment of AGI remains a subject of extreme debate within the AI community. While traditional consensus held that AGI was a distant objective, current developments have led some scientists and industry figures to claim that early types of AGI might already exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon hypothesized in 1965 that "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do". This prediction stopped working to come true. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century due to the fact that it would need "unforeseeable and fundamentally unforeseeable advancements" and a "scientifically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf in between contemporary computing and human-level artificial intelligence is as wide as the gulf between current area flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A further difficulty is the lack of clearness in specifying what intelligence involves. Does it need consciousness? Must it show the capability to set objectives as well as pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as preparation, thinking, and causal understanding needed? Does intelligence need clearly duplicating the brain and its particular professors? Does it need emotions? [81]

Most AI researchers believe strong AI can be attained in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of accomplishing strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who believe human-level AI will be achieved, however that the present level of development is such that a date can not precisely be forecasted. [84] AI experts' views on the feasibility of AGI wax and subside. Four surveys conducted in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the average price quote among specialists for when they would be 50% confident AGI would show up was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the poll, with the mean being 2081. Of the professionals, 16.5% answered with "never ever" when asked the exact same concern however with a 90% self-confidence instead. [85] [86] Further current AGI progress considerations can be discovered 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 amount of time there is a strong bias towards anticipating the arrival of human-level AI as between 15 and 25 years from the time the forecast was made". They examined 95 predictions made between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]

In 2023, Microsoft scientists published a comprehensive examination of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, our company believe that it could fairly be seen as an early (yet still incomplete) version of a synthetic general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another 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 composed in 2023 that a significant level of general intelligence has already been attained with frontier designs. They composed that unwillingness to this view comes from 4 primary factors: a "healthy skepticism about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or strategies", a "dedication to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "issue about the economic implications of AGI". [91]

2023 also marked the emergence of big multimodal designs (big language models capable of processing or creating numerous modalities such as text, audio, and images). [92]

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

An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the company had actually achieved AGI, stating, "In my opinion, we have currently accomplished AGI and it's even more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "better than any human at any job", it is "better than the majority of humans at the majority of tasks." He also dealt with criticisms that large language models (LLMs) merely follow predefined patterns, comparing their learning procedure to the scientific method of observing, assuming, and verifying. These declarations have actually stimulated argument, as they rely on a broad and non-traditional meaning 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 completely fulfill this requirement. Notably, Kazemi's remarks came quickly after OpenAI eliminated "AGI" from the terms of its partnership with Microsoft, triggering speculation about the business's tactical objectives. [95]

Timescales

Progress in synthetic intelligence has actually traditionally gone through durations of fast progress separated by durations when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were basic advances in hardware, software or both to create area for additional development. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware offered in the twentieth century was not enough to carry out deep learning, which requires great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that estimates of the time needed before a truly versatile AGI is built differ from 10 years to over a century. As of 2007 [update], the consensus in the AGI research study community seemed 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 plausible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have actually provided a large range of viewpoints on whether development will be this fast. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions found a predisposition towards forecasting that the onset of AGI would take place within 16-26 years for contemporary and historic forecasts alike. That paper has been slammed for how it categorized opinions as expert or non-expert. [104]

In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton established a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competition with a top-5 test mistake rate of 15.3%, significantly better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the conventional approach used a weighted amount of scores from various pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was concerned as the initial ground-breaker of the current deep learning wave. [105]

In 2017, scientists Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu carried out intelligence tests on publicly offered 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 kid in first grade. An adult pertains to about 100 usually. Similar tests were brought out in 2014, with the IQ score reaching an optimum value of 27. [106] [107]

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

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

In 2022, DeepMind established Gato, a "general-purpose" system efficient in carrying out more than 600 various jobs. [110]

In 2023, Microsoft Research published a study on an early variation of OpenAI's GPT-4, competing that it displayed more general intelligence than previous AI models and showed human-level performance in jobs spanning multiple domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research triggered an argument on whether GPT-4 might be thought about an early, incomplete version of synthetic basic intelligence, highlighting the need for further exploration and evaluation of such systems. [111]

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

The concept that this stuff could in fact get smarter than people - a couple of individuals believed that, [...] But a lot of people believed it was method off. And I believed 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 stated that "The progress in the last couple of years has been pretty incredible", which he sees no reason why it would decrease, expecting AGI within a decade and even a couple of years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, mentioned his expectation that within 5 years, AI would can passing any test a minimum of as well as human beings. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI staff member, approximated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably possible". [115]

Whole brain emulation

While the development of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is thought about the most appealing path to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can function as an alternative method. With whole brain simulation, a brain design is developed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and then copying and imitating it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation design should be adequately faithful to the initial, so that it behaves in virtually the same method as the initial brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is gone over in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study functions. It has actually been discussed in artificial intelligence research study [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that might deliver the necessary comprehensive 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 estimates

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

In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at various quotes for the hardware needed to equal the human brain and adopted a figure of 1016 computations per second (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "computation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a measure used to rate current supercomputers - then 1016 "calculations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was achieved in 2022.) He used this figure to anticipate the necessary hardware would be offered at some point in between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid growth in computer power at the time of writing continued.

Current research study

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded initiative active from 2013 to 2023, has actually established an especially detailed and publicly accessible atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, scientists from Duke University performed a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.

Criticisms of simulation-based approaches

The synthetic nerve cell design presumed by Kurzweil and used in many current artificial neural network applications is simple compared to biological nerve cells. A brain simulation would likely have to catch the comprehensive cellular behaviour of biological neurons, presently comprehended just in broad overview. The overhead presented by complete modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (particularly on a molecular scale) would require computational powers several orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's price quote. In addition, the estimates do not represent glial cells, which are understood to contribute in cognitive processes. [125]

An essential criticism of the simulated brain approach originates from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is a vital aspect of human intelligence and is needed to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is right, any totally functional 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 a choice, however it is unknown whether this would suffice.

Philosophical perspective

"Strong AI" as defined in viewpoint

In 1980, thinker John Searle created the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese room argument. [128] He proposed a distinction in between 2 hypotheses about expert system: [f]

Strong AI hypothesis: An expert system 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 awareness.


The very first one he called "strong" since it makes a more powerful 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" maker would be exactly similar to a "strong AI" maker, however the latter would likewise have subjective mindful experience. This usage is also typical in scholastic AI research and books. [129]

In contrast to Searle and traditional AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil utilize the term "strong AI" to indicate "human level synthetic basic 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 theorists such as Searle do not believe that holds true, and to most expert system scientists the concern is out-of-scope. [130]

Mainstream AI is most thinking about how a program behaves. [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 behave as if it has a mind, then there is no need to understand if it really has mind - certainly, there would be no way to inform. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is equivalent to the declaration "artificial general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI scientists take the weak AI hypothesis for granted, and don't care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for scholastic AI research study, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are two different things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have different meanings, and some elements play substantial functions in sci-fi and the ethics of expert system:

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

Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a different individual, specifically to be purposely knowledgeable about one's own thoughts. This is opposed to simply being the "subject of one's believed"-an os or debugger is able to be "conscious of itself" (that is, to represent itself in the exact same way it represents whatever else)-but this is not what people usually suggest when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]

These qualities have an ethical dimension. AI sentience would trigger concerns of well-being and legal security, likewise to animals. [136] Other elements of consciousness associated to cognitive capabilities are also appropriate to the principle of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to integrate sophisticated AI with existing legal and social structures is an emerging issue. [138]

Benefits

AGI could have a wide array of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI might assist mitigate numerous problems on the planet such as hunger, poverty and health issues. [139]

AGI could improve efficiency and performance in most tasks. For example, in public health, AGI could speed up medical research study, especially against cancer. [140] It might look after the senior, [141] and democratize access to fast, premium medical diagnostics. It might provide enjoyable, inexpensive and personalized education. [141] The need to work to subsist might become outdated if the wealth produced is correctly redistributed. [141] [142] This also raises the concern of the location of humans in a significantly automated society.

AGI could likewise help to make logical decisions, and to prepare for and prevent disasters. It might also assist to profit of possibly devastating innovations such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while preventing the associated risks. [143] If an AGI's primary goal is to prevent existential disasters such as human termination (which could be hard if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being real), [144] it could take steps to drastically decrease the risks [143] while decreasing the effect of these procedures on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential risks

AGI might represent several types of existential danger, which are dangers that threaten "the premature extinction of Earth-originating smart life or the permanent and extreme destruction of its potential for preferable future development". [145] The risk of human termination from AGI has actually been the subject of lots of arguments, but there is likewise the possibility that the advancement of AGI would cause a permanently flawed future. Notably, it might be utilized to spread out and maintain the set of worths of whoever establishes it. If mankind still has ethical blind spots comparable to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, preventing moral development. [146] Furthermore, AGI could assist in mass monitoring and brainwashing, which might be used to create a steady repressive worldwide totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is likewise a risk for the machines themselves. If makers that are sentient or otherwise deserving of moral consideration are mass produced in the future, participating in a civilizational path that forever overlooks their welfare and interests might be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI might improve humanity's future and assistance decrease other existential risks, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for proceeding with due caution", not for "deserting AI". [147]

Risk of loss of control and human extinction

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

In 2014, Stephen Hawking criticized widespread indifference:

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

The prospective fate of humankind has often been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The comparison specifies that greater intelligence allowed humankind to control gorillas, which are now vulnerable in manner ins which they could not have expected. As an outcome, the gorilla has ended up being a threatened species, not out of malice, but merely as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to control humankind and that we must take care not to anthropomorphize them and translate their intents as we would for human beings. He stated that people won't be "wise enough to develop super-intelligent makers, yet extremely dumb to the point of providing it moronic objectives with no safeguards". [155] On the other side, the principle of instrumental merging recommends that nearly whatever their goals, intelligent representatives will have reasons to try to survive and obtain more power as intermediary steps to achieving these goals. And that this does not need having feelings. [156]

Many scholars who are worried about existential threat supporter for more research study into fixing the "control problem" to answer the concern: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers execute to increase the probability that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, instead of damaging, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is made complex by the AI arms race (which might result in a race to the bottom of security precautions in order to launch products before rivals), [159] and making use of AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can posture existential threat also has detractors. Skeptics usually say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI distract from other issues related to present AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder considers that for lots of people outside of the technology market, existing chatbots and LLMs are currently perceived as though they were AGI, resulting in further misunderstanding and fear. [162]

Skeptics in some cases charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an illogical belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an irrational belief in an omnipotent God. [163] Some scientists believe that the communication projects on AI existential danger by specific AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might be an at attempt at regulative 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, provided a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the danger of termination from AI should be a global top priority together with other societal-scale threats such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]

Mass joblessness

Researchers from OpenAI estimated that "80% of the U.S. workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks impacted by the intro of LLMs, while around 19% of employees might see at least 50% of their tasks impacted". [166] [167] They think about office workers to be the most exposed, for instance mathematicians, accounting professionals or web designers. [167] AGI might have a better autonomy, ability to make decisions, to user interface with other computer tools, but also to control robotized bodies.

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

Everyone can enjoy a life of elegant leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most individuals can wind up miserably bad if the machine-owners effectively lobby against wealth redistribution. Up until now, the pattern appears to be toward the second option, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality

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

See also

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


Notes

^ a b See listed below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the scholastic meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the short article Chinese space.
^ AI creator John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet characterize in general what type of computational treatments we wish to call intelligent. " [26] (For a discussion of some meanings of intelligence used by artificial intelligence researchers, see approach of artificial intelligence.).
^ The Lighthill report specifically slammed AI's "grand goals" and led the taking apart of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became determined to money only "mission-oriented direct research study, instead of standard undirected research study". [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy composes "it would be a great relief to the rest of the employees in AI if the inventors of brand-new general formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more secured form than has sometimes held true." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More just recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would approximately represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in regards to MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented.
^ As defined in a standard AI textbook: "The assertion that machines might potentially act intelligently (or, maybe better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by theorists, and the assertion that devices that do so are in fact thinking (rather than mimicing thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is synthetic narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is developed to carry out a single job.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to make sure that artificial basic intelligence benefits all of mankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's brand-new objective is developing synthetic basic intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to develop AI that is much 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 tasks were identified as being active in 2020.
^ a b c "AI timelines: What do experts in expert system anticipate for the future?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
^ Metz, Cade (15 May 2023). "Some Researchers Say A.I. Is Already Here, Stirring Debate in Tech Circles". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023.
^ "AI leader Geoffrey Hinton quits Google and alerts of threat ahead". The New York City Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is hard to see how you can prevent the bad actors 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 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 alter. All that you change changes you.
^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming.
^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Expert System". The New York Times. The genuine danger is not AI itself however the way we release it.
^ "Impressed by expert system? Experts say AGI is following, and it has 'existential' risks". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI could present 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 creation that mankind 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 concern.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts warn of threat of extinction from AI.
^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York City Times. We are far from developing machines that can outthink us in general ways.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not present an existential danger". Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential risk.
^ 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 "device intelligence with the complete variety of human intelligence.".
^ "The Age of Artificial Intelligence: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the initial on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they use 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 changing our world - it is on everybody to ensure that it works out". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to attaining 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 major AI books, consisting of: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998.
^ Johnson 1987.
^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York City: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body forms the method we think: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The concept of skills". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: The idea of skills". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the initial on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the original on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What 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 says so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ "Scientists contest whether computer system 'Eugene Goostman' passed Turing test". BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). "People can not 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 exam to AP Biology. Here's a list of challenging tests 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 Profit From It". Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is undependable. The Winograd Schema is obsolete. Coffee is the answer". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder suggested checking an AI chatbot's ability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to determine human-like intelligence". Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). "Mustafa Suleyman: My brand-new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Expert System" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Expert System (Second ed.). New York: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".).
^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Specifying Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Artificial Intelligence, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 22 May 2013.
^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". Stanford University Human-Centered 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 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 ), 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 Expert system, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York Times. Archived from the initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system researchers and software engineers avoided the term synthetic intelligence for fear of being considered as wild-eyed dreamers.
^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26
^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the initial on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20
^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300.
^ Gubrud 1997
^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Technology an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the original 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 coined the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., through Life 3.0: 'The term "AGI" was popularized by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel'
^ Wang & Goertzel 2007
^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main 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 original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limits of device intelligence: Despite development in maker intelligence, artificial general intelligence is still a major difficulty". 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 develop into a Frankenstein's monster". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 17 September 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Deane, George (2022 ). "Machines That Feel and Think: The Role of Affective Feelings and Mental Action in (Artificial) General Intelligence". Artificial Life. 28 (3 ): 289-309. doi:10.1162/ artl_a_00368. ISSN 1064-5462. PMID 35881678. S2CID 251069071.
^ a b c Clocksin 2003.
^ Fjelland, Ragnar (17 June 2020). "Why general expert system will not be understood". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1 ): 1-9. doi:10.1057/ s41599-020-0494-4. hdl:11250/ 2726984. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 219710554.
^ McCarthy 2007b.
^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (23 November 2015). "The Doomsday Invention: Will artificial intelligence bring us paradise or destruction?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future development in expert system: A survey of skilled opinion. In Fundamental concerns of expert system (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.
^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, edited by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia
^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023.
^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The creativity of machines: AI takes the Torrance Test". Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185.
^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema.
^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). "Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024". Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
^ "Introducing OpenAI o1-preview". OpenAI. 12 September 2024.
^ Knight, Will. "OpenAI Announces a 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 ). "The Why, What, and How of Artificial General Intelligence Chip Development". IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. 14 (2 ): 333-347. arXiv:2012.06338. doi:10.1109/ TCDS.2021.3069871. ISSN 2379-8920. S2CID 228376556. Archived from the initial on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
^ Pei, Jing; Deng, Lei; Song, Sen; Zhao, Mingguo; Zhang, Youhui; Wu, Shuang; Wang, Guanrui; Zou, Zhe; Wu, Zhenzhi; He, Wei; Chen, Feng; Deng, Ning; Wu, Si; Wang, Yu; Wu, Yujie (2019 ). "Towards artificial basic intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture". Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the original on 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
^ Pandey, Mohit; Fernandez, Michael; Gentile, Francesco; Isayev, Olexandr; Tropsha, Alexander; Stern, Abraham C.; Cherkasov, Artem (March 2022). "The transformational role of GPU computing and deep learning in drug discovery". Nature Machine Intelligence. 4 (3 ): 21