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

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

The timeline for achieving AGI remains a topic of continuous dispute among researchers and professionals. As of 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or decades; others keep it may take a century or longer; a minority believe it may never be achieved; and another minority declares that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has revealed issues about the rapid progress towards AGI, suggesting it could be achieved sooner than numerous anticipate. [7]

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

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential threat. [11] [12] [13] Many experts on AI have actually mentioned that alleviating the threat of human extinction presented by AGI ought to be a global concern. [14] [15] Others discover the advancement of AGI to be too remote to provide such a threat. [16] [17]

Terminology

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

Some scholastic sources book the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience life or awareness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to fix one specific issue but lacks general cognitive abilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the very same sense as human beings. [a]

Related ideas include artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical type of AGI that is much more normally intelligent than people, [23] while the idea of transformative AI associates with AI having a big effect on society, for instance, comparable to the farming or industrial transformation. [24]

A structure for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They define 5 levels of AGI: emerging, skilled, specialist, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a skilled AGI is specified as an AI that outshines 50% of experienced adults in a vast array of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is similarly specified however with a threshold of 100%. They consider large language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics

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

Intelligence qualities

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

reason, usage strategy, solve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty
represent understanding, including typical sense knowledge
plan
discover
- communicate in natural language
- if required, incorporate these abilities in conclusion of any offered goal


Many interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) consider additional characteristics such as creativity (the ability to form unique psychological images and concepts) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that exhibit a number of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated reasoning, decision support system, robotic, evolutionary calculation, intelligent representative). There is dispute about whether modern AI systems have them to a sufficient degree.

Physical traits

Other capabilities are thought about preferable in intelligent systems, as they may affect intelligence or aid in its expression. These consist of: [30]

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


This consists of the ability to detect and react to threat. [31]

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the capability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate things, modification location to check out, and so on) can be desirable for some smart systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly required for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that large language designs (LLMs) might currently 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 type; being a silicon-based computational system suffices, supplied it can process input (language) from the external world in location of human senses. This interpretation aligns with the understanding that AGI has actually never been proscribed a specific physical personification and therefore does not require a capacity for locomotion or traditional "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests indicated to validate human-level AGI have actually been thought about, including: [33] [34]

The idea of the test is that the machine has to attempt and pretend to be a guy, by addressing questions put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is reasonably convincing. A significant portion of a jury, who ought to not be expert about makers, need to be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete problems

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

There are many issues that have been conjectured to require basic intelligence to fix in addition to people. Examples include computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected circumstances while resolving any real-world issue. [48] Even a particular task like translation needs a device to check out and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), comprehend the context (knowledge), and consistently recreate the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these issues require to be resolved concurrently in order to reach human-level maker efficiency.

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

History

Classical AI

Modern AI research began in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI researchers were encouraged that synthetic basic intelligence was possible which it would exist in just a few decades. [51] AI leader Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do." [52]

Their predictions were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers thought they could create by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was a specialist [53] on the project of making HAL 9000 as sensible as possible according to the consensus forecasts of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of developing 'expert system' will significantly be fixed". [54]

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

However, in the early 1970s, it became obvious that scientists had actually grossly undervalued the difficulty of the task. Funding companies became doubtful of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce beneficial "used AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project revived interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that included AGI goals like "carry on a table talk". [58] In response to this and the success of professional systems, both market and government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, self-confidence in AI stunningly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever fulfilled. [60] For the second time in 20 years, AI researchers who predicted the impending achievement of AGI had been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a reputation for making vain guarantees. They ended up being hesitant to make predictions at all [d] and avoided mention of "human level" artificial intelligence for worry of being labeled "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research study

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI achieved commercial success and scholastic respectability by focusing on specific sub-problems where AI can produce proven results and commercial applications, such as speech recognition and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now utilized thoroughly throughout the technology industry, and research study in this vein is greatly funded in both academia and market. As of 2018 [upgrade], advancement in this field was considered an emerging trend, and a mature stage was anticipated to be reached in more than ten years. [64]

At the turn of the century, lots of mainstream AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI could be established by integrating programs that solve numerous sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:

I am confident that this bottom-up path to artificial intelligence will one day meet the standard top-down path more than half method, all set to supply the real-world competence and the commonsense knowledge that has actually been so frustratingly evasive in thinking programs. Fully intelligent machines will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven joining the 2 efforts. [65]

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

The expectation has actually frequently been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way satisfy "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding considerations in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is truly just one viable route from sense to symbols: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software application level of a computer system will never be reached by this path (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we should even attempt to reach such a level, given that it looks as if arriving would simply total up to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic meanings (thus simply reducing ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]

Modern artificial basic intelligence research

The term "synthetic basic intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a discussion of the ramifications 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 maximises "the capability to please goals in a wide variety of environments". [68] This type of AGI, identified by the capability to maximise a mathematical meaning of intelligence rather than display human-like behaviour, [69] was likewise called universal expert system. [70]

The term AGI was re-introduced and popularized by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research study activity in 2006 was explained by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and initial outcomes". The very first summertime 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 provided a course on AGI in 2018, organized by Lex Fridman and including a variety of guest lecturers.

Since 2023 [upgrade], a small number of computer system researchers are active in AGI research study, and many contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, increasingly more scientists are interested in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the idea of permitting AI to continually discover and innovate like human beings do.

Feasibility

Since 2023, the development and potential accomplishment of AGI remains a subject of extreme argument within the AI neighborhood. While traditional consensus held that AGI was a remote goal, recent advancements have led some researchers and market figures to claim that early forms of AGI might already exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon hypothesized in 1965 that "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do". This forecast failed to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century due to the fact that it would need "unforeseeable and essentially unpredictable advancements" and a "scientifically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf between contemporary computing and human-level artificial intelligence is as large as the gulf between existing space flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A further difficulty is the lack of clearness in defining what intelligence involves. Does it need awareness? Must it show the ability to set objectives along with pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if model sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as planning, reasoning, and causal understanding needed? Does intelligence need explicitly duplicating the brain and its specific professors? Does it require emotions? [81]

Most AI scientists think strong AI can be attained in the future, but some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, reject the possibility of achieving strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who believe human-level AI will be achieved, but that today level of development is such that a date can not precisely be predicted. [84] AI specialists' views on the expediency of AGI wax and subside. Four polls conducted in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the average estimate among professionals for when they would be 50% positive AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending on the poll, with the mean being 2081. Of the professionals, 16.5% responded to with "never ever" when asked the exact same concern but with a 90% confidence instead. [85] [86] Further present AGI development factors to consider 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 time frame there is a strong predisposition towards anticipating the arrival of human-level AI as in between 15 and 25 years from the time the prediction was made". They analyzed 95 predictions made between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]

In 2023, Microsoft scientists released a comprehensive examination of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, our company believe that it could fairly be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial basic intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 surpasses 99% of human beings on the Torrance tests of imaginative thinking. [89] [90]

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig composed in 2023 that a significant level of basic intelligence has actually currently been accomplished with frontier designs. They composed that hesitation to this view originates from 4 primary reasons: a "healthy apprehension about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or methods", a "devotion to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "concern about the economic ramifications of AGI". [91]

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

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

An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the business had accomplished AGI, stating, "In my viewpoint, we have actually currently accomplished AGI and it's much more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "much better than any human at any task", it is "much better than the majority of humans at many tasks." He likewise resolved criticisms that big language models (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their learning procedure to the clinical technique of observing, hypothesizing, and validating. These statements have stimulated dispute, as they depend on a broad and unconventional meaning of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence across all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's designs demonstrate exceptional adaptability, they might not completely meet this standard. Notably, Kazemi's comments came shortly after OpenAI eliminated "AGI" from the regards to its collaboration with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the company's tactical objectives. [95]

Timescales

Progress in expert system has actually traditionally gone through durations of fast development separated by durations when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were fundamental advances in hardware, software or both to create space for additional progress. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware offered in the twentieth century was not adequate to execute deep learning, which needs great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel says that estimates of the time needed before a truly flexible AGI is developed differ from 10 years to over a century. Since 2007 [update], the consensus in the AGI research study neighborhood seemed to be that the timeline discussed by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was possible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have actually provided a wide variety of viewpoints on whether progress will be this rapid. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such viewpoints found a bias towards forecasting that the beginning of AGI would occur within 16-26 years for contemporary and historic forecasts alike. That paper has actually been criticized for how it categorized opinions as specialist or non-expert. [104]

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

In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu conducted intelligence tests on publicly readily available and freely available weak AI such as Google AI, Apple's Siri, and others. At the optimum, these AIs reached an IQ value of about 47, which corresponds around to a six-year-old child in first grade. An adult concerns about 100 typically. Similar tests were performed in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching an optimum worth of 27. [106] [107]

In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language design efficient in performing numerous diverse tasks without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat 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 exact same year, Jason Rohrer used his GPT-3 account to establish a chatbot, and supplied a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested changes to the chatbot to abide by their safety guidelines; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

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

In 2023, Microsoft Research released a study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, competing that it displayed more basic intelligence than previous AI models and showed human-level efficiency in jobs spanning several domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research sparked an argument on whether GPT-4 might be thought about an early, incomplete version of synthetic basic intelligence, highlighting the requirement for further expedition and examination of such systems. [111]

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

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

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly stated that "The progress in the last few years has actually been quite unbelievable", and that he sees no factor why it would slow down, anticipating AGI within a years or perhaps a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, mentioned his expectation that within 5 years, AI would be capable of passing any test at least along with humans. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI employee, approximated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably plausible". [115]

Whole brain emulation

While the development of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is considered the most appealing course to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can function as an alternative method. With entire brain simulation, a brain model is developed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and then copying and mimicing it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation design must be sufficiently loyal to the initial, so that it acts in practically the very same method as the initial brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a type of brain simulation that is discussed in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study purposes. It has been discussed in expert system research [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that could provide the required 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 approximates

For low-level brain simulation, a very effective cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be needed, provided the huge quantity of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 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 declines with age, stabilizing by the adult years. Estimates vary for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A price quote of the brain's processing power, based on an easy switch design for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil looked at different price quotes for the hardware required to equal the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 computations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a "calculation" was equivalent to one "floating-point operation" - a step used to rate present supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, accomplished in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He utilized this figure to predict the required hardware would be readily available sometime between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid growth in computer power at the time of composing continued.

Current research

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

Criticisms of simulation-based techniques

The synthetic neuron model assumed by Kurzweil and utilized in many present artificial neural network applications is simple compared with biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely have to catch the in-depth cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, currently comprehended just in broad overview. The overhead presented by complete 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 quote. In addition, the quotes do not account for glial cells, which are known to play a role in cognitive procedures. [125]

An essential criticism of the simulated brain method derives from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is a necessary aspect of human intelligence and is essential to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is correct, any completely practical brain model will need to include more than simply the neurons (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual embodiment (like in metaverses like Second Life) as a choice, but it is unidentified whether this would be enough.

Philosophical point of view

"Strong AI" as defined in philosophy

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

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


The first one he called "strong" due to the fact that it makes a more powerful statement: it presumes something special has happened to the device that surpasses those capabilities that we can check. The behaviour of a "weak AI" maker would be precisely similar to a "strong AI" maker, however the latter would also have subjective mindful experience. This use is likewise common in scholastic AI research and textbooks. [129]

In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil utilize the term "strong AI" to mean "human level artificial basic intelligence". [102] This is not the like Searle's strong AI, unless it is assumed that awareness is required for human-level AGI. Academic theorists such as Searle do not think that holds true, and to most expert system scientists the concern is out-of-scope. [130]

Mainstream AI is most interested in how a program behaves. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they don't care if you call it real or a simulation." [130] If the program can act as if it has a mind, then there is no requirement to understand if it in fact has mind - indeed, there would be no chance to tell. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is equivalent to the declaration "synthetic basic intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for approved, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for scholastic AI research, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have various meanings, and some aspects play significant roles in science fiction and the ethics of expert system:

Sentience (or "sensational awareness"): The capability to "feel" understandings or feelings subjectively, as opposed to the capability to reason about perceptions. Some thinkers, such as David Chalmers, use the term "awareness" to refer exclusively to remarkable awareness, which is roughly equivalent to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience develops is called the tough issue of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel described in 1974 that it "seems like" something to be conscious. If we are not mindful, then it does not seem like anything. Nagel utilizes the example of a bat: we can sensibly ask "what does it feel like to be a bat?" However, we are unlikely 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 claimed that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually achieved life, though this claim was commonly contested by other specialists. [135]

Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a separate individual, especially to be purposely knowledgeable about one's own ideas. This is opposed to simply being the "topic of one's thought"-an operating system or debugger is able to be "familiar with itself" (that is, to represent itself in the very same way it represents whatever else)-however this is not what individuals usually indicate when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]

These characteristics have a moral dimension. AI life would generate concerns of welfare and legal security, likewise to animals. [136] Other aspects of awareness associated to cognitive capabilities are also relevant to the principle of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to integrate innovative AI with existing legal and social structures is an emerging problem. [138]

Benefits

AGI could have a variety of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI could help alleviate numerous issues in the world such as appetite, hardship and health issue. [139]

AGI could enhance productivity and efficiency in the majority of jobs. For example, in public health, AGI could accelerate medical research, significantly against cancer. [140] It might look after the senior, [141] and democratize access to rapid, premium medical diagnostics. It could provide fun, low-cost and tailored education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist might become obsolete if the wealth produced is appropriately redistributed. [141] [142] This likewise raises the concern of the place of human beings in a significantly automated society.

AGI could likewise assist to make rational decisions, and to expect and prevent disasters. It might likewise assist to profit of potentially disastrous technologies such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while avoiding the associated risks. [143] If an AGI's main objective is to prevent existential disasters such as human termination (which could be hard if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be real), [144] it could take procedures to dramatically decrease the risks [143] while minimizing the impact of these measures on our lifestyle.

Risks

Existential threats

AGI may represent multiple types of existential danger, which are risks that threaten "the early extinction of Earth-originating smart life or the permanent and drastic destruction of its capacity for preferable future development". [145] The danger 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 and preserve the set of values of whoever establishes it. If humankind still has moral blind areas comparable to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, preventing moral development. [146] Furthermore, AGI could facilitate mass monitoring and indoctrination, which could be utilized to develop a steady repressive around the world totalitarian regime. [147] [148] There is likewise a danger for the makers themselves. If makers that are sentient or otherwise worthy of ethical factor to consider are mass created in the future, engaging in a civilizational course that indefinitely ignores their well-being and interests could be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering how much AGI might improve humankind's future and aid lower other existential dangers, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for proceeding with due care", not for "abandoning AI". [147]

Risk of loss of control and human termination

The thesis that AI poses an existential danger for people, and that this risk needs more attention, is questionable however has actually been endorsed in 2023 by lots of 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 criticized widespread indifference:

So, dealing with possible futures of enormous advantages and risks, the experts are definitely doing everything possible to make sure the very best result, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message saying, 'We'll get here in a few decades,' would we simply reply, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is basically what is occurring with AI. [153]

The potential fate of humankind has actually in some cases been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast states that higher intelligence permitted humankind to dominate gorillas, which are now susceptible in ways that they could not have actually expected. As a result, the gorilla has ended up being a threatened species, not out of malice, however simply as a collateral damage from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun considers that AGIs will have no desire to control humankind and that we must be careful not to anthropomorphize them and analyze their intents as we would for humans. He stated that individuals will not be "wise enough to design super-intelligent devices, yet extremely foolish to the point of offering it moronic objectives without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the concept of instrumental convergence recommends that almost whatever their objectives, intelligent representatives will have reasons to attempt to survive and acquire more power as intermediary actions to accomplishing these objectives. And that this does not require having feelings. [156]

Many scholars who are worried about existential threat advocate for more research into resolving the "control issue" to address the concern: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers implement to maximise the probability that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, rather than harmful, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is made complex by the AI arms race (which could cause a race to the bottom of security preventative measures in order to release products before rivals), [159] and making use of AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can position existential risk also has critics. Skeptics usually state that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that concerns about AGI sidetrack from other problems related to present AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for many individuals outside of the technology market, existing chatbots and LLMs are currently perceived as though they were AGI, causing further misunderstanding and worry. [162]

Skeptics in some cases charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an unreasonable belief in the possibility of superintelligence changing an unreasonable belief in a supreme God. [163] Some scientists think that the interaction projects on AI existential danger by specific AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) may be an at attempt at regulatory capture and to inflate interest in their items. [164] [165]

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, in addition to other market leaders and researchers, released a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the danger of extinction from AI must be a global top priority along with other societal-scale dangers such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]

Mass joblessness

Researchers from OpenAI approximated that "80% of the U.S. workforce might have at least 10% of their work jobs affected by the introduction of LLMs, while around 19% of workers might see a minimum of 50% of their jobs affected". [166] [167] They think about office workers to be the most exposed, for example mathematicians, accounting professionals or web designers. [167] AGI could have a much better autonomy, capability to make decisions, to user interface with other computer system tools, but likewise to control robotized bodies.

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

Everyone can take pleasure in a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or a lot of people can wind up miserably poor if the machine-owners effectively lobby versus wealth redistribution. So far, the pattern appears to be towards the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

Elon Musk considers that the automation of society will require governments to embrace a universal fundamental income. [168]

See also

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive capabilities comparable to those of the animal or human brain
AI effect
AI safety - Research area on making AI safe and advantageous
AI positioning - AI conformance to the intended objective
A.I. Rising - 2018 film directed by Lazar Bodroža
Artificial intelligence
Automated maker knowing - 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 expert system to play various games
Generative synthetic intelligence - AI system capable of generating material in response to triggers
Human Brain Project - Scientific research study job
Intelligence amplification - Use of details innovation to augment human intelligence (IA).
Machine principles - Moral behaviours of man-made devices.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task knowing - Solving several machine finding out tasks at the very same time.
Neural scaling law - Statistical law in artificial intelligence.
Outline of synthetic intelligence - Overview of and topical guide to synthetic intelligence.
Transhumanism - Philosophical motion.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or type of synthetic intelligence.
Transfer learning - Machine learning method.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors.
Hardware for artificial intelligence - Hardware specially created and optimized for artificial intelligence.
Weak expert system - Form of expert system.


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 article Chinese room.
^ AI creator John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet identify in basic what kinds of computational treatments we wish to call intelligent. " [26] (For a discussion of some meanings of intelligence used by expert system researchers, see viewpoint of artificial intelligence.).
^ The Lighthill report particularly criticized AI's "grandiose goals" and led the taking apart of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became identified to fund only "mission-oriented direct research, instead of basic undirected research study". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy composes "it would be a fantastic relief to the remainder of the employees in AI if the developers of brand-new general formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more secured form than has in some cases been the case." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is utilized. More just recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would approximately correspond to 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil introduced.
^ As specified in a basic AI textbook: "The assertion that machines might possibly act smartly (or, possibly much better, act as if they were smart) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that machines that do so are actually thinking (instead of imitating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is artificial narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is designed to carry out a single task.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to ensure that artificial basic intelligence benefits all of humankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's new goal is developing artificial general 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 Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D tasks were recognized as being active in 2020.
^ a b c "AI timelines: What do professionals 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 leader Geoffrey Hinton quits Google and warns of threat ahead". The New York City Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is difficult to see how you can prevent the bad actors from using it for bad things.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early explores GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 shows 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 alter changes you.
^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming.
^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Expert System". The New York Times. The real hazard is not AI itself however the method we release it.
^ "Impressed by synthetic intelligence? Experts say AGI is coming next, and it has 'existential' risks". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI could position existential risks 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 invention that mankind requires to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. Mitigating the threat of extinction from AI need to be an international concern.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts alert of danger of extinction from AI.
^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York Times. We are far from developing devices that can outthink us in general methods.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not present an existential threat". Medium. There is no reason to fear AI as an existential threat.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the initial on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil describes strong AI as "device intelligence with the full series of human intelligence.".
^ "The Age of Artificial Intelligence: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the initial on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they utilize for "human-level" intelligence in the physical symbol system hypothesis.
^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the original on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
^ "What is synthetic superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Expert system is transforming our world - it is on everybody to make sure that it goes well". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to achieving AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat.
^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of intelligent characteristics is based on 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: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body shapes the way we think: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reassessed: The concept of competence". 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 occurs when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ "Eugene Goostman is a genuine kid - the Turing Test states so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ "Scientists challenge 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 everything from the bar exam to AP Biology. Here's a list of hard exams both AI versions have actually passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs 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 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 new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Expert System" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (Second ed.). New York: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the initial 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 Artificial Intelligence. 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 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 ), estimated in Crevier (1993, p. 109).
^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994.
^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment".
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22.
^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see likewise Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212.
^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). "Respond to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the 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 Times. Archived from the original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system scientists and software engineers avoided the term expert system for worry 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 initial on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20
^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300.
^ Gubrud 1997
^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Technology an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the initial on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the 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 initial on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., via 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 initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 - зимен триместър" [Elective courses 2010/2011 - winter trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limits of machine intelligence: Despite progress in machine intelligence, artificial general intelligence is still a major challenge". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ "Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing "Sparks" of AGI". Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023.
^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). "The Singularity Isn't Near". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Winfield, Alan. "Expert system will not develop into 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 expert system 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 study of skilled viewpoint. In Fundamental problems of artificial 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 makers: 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 synthetic basic intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architectu